San Diego Zoo The Greatest Or Most Overrated?

ANyhuis said:
@SnowLeopard:
So what are the "most overrated zoos? I'll give you a complicated answer. To me, the most overrated are any zoos that are highly rated based on how many AZA Exhibit of the Year awards they've won. There are a couple of these zoos I can think of, but I'll refrain from naming them. What's actually most overrated is the AZA EOTY award. As I've said many times, this award is more political than it is based on exhibit excellence. When none of Omaha's "Big 3" (Lied Jungle, Kingdoms of the Night, Desert Dome) have won the award, when Disney's Animal Kingdom has never won, and the same is true of Columbus' excellent zoo, that should tell you there's something false about this award.
Click to expand...

Omaha may be one of the most overrated zoos based on the exhibits that you cite here. The Desert Dome looks pretty, but the actual conditions for several of the inhabitants are not much better than one would find in a zoo in a third-world country. The hyrax and rock wallaby exhibits are narrow concrete strips that are absolutely appalling. The mountain lion was in a small concrete box (I understand that they now have a smaller species in there, but it is still an awful exhibit). Omaha is good at dazzling people with props and stage effects, but an epic failure at actually providing decent homes for their animals in these exhibits. In this respect Omaha is a bad zoo rather than one of the best.

I do commend them for sending their elephant away until they can build a better exhibit for the species. The new management and master plan seem to be on the path to rebuilding the outdated cat and bear exhibits also, so maybe Omaha will actually become a zoo worthy of its reputation. They have also done some very important conservation work in Madagascar.
 
Last edited:
Over-rated?One or two mostly by themselves..and i remember the head honcho of a british zoo at a conference confiding to a colleague within my earshot that "we [britain]must have the best zoos in the world"...i nearly choked on my vol-au-vont!The UK is a distant fourth behind the U.S.,Germany and Holland in that order.Going back to the subject then i would have to say Fort Worth even if MOLA is brilliant.
 
Tim Brown said:
Over-rated?One or two mostly by themselves..and i remember the head honcho of a british zoo at a conference confiding to a colleague within my earshot that "we [britain]must have the best zoos in the world"...i nearly choked on my vol-au-vont!The UK is a distant fourth behind the U.S.,Germany and Holland in that order.Going back to the subject then i would have to say Fort Worth even if MOLA is brilliant.
Click to expand...

You're saying Ft. Worth is over-rated? I agree, it's pretty awful (or at best mediocre) except for MOLA. And Switzerland is well ahead of the UK and maybe even Germany in the world zoo bragging rights competition--small number of zoos but top notch, especially Zurich and Basle.
 
reduakari said:
And Switzerland is well ahead of the UK and maybe even Germany in the world zoo bragging rights competition--small number of zoos but top notch, especially Zurich and Basle.
Click to expand...

I'd certainly agree that British zoos, as a whole, are over-rated - anyone who argues that they are amongst Europe's best is, simply, wrong. Not just Germany and Holland, and Switzerland, but, I'd suggest, Belgium, France and the Czech Republic are all better zoo countries that the UK.
 
What is wrong with Fort Worth? It is actually one of my favorite zoos (easily top 20). And I do not think it is over-rated because it is generally not rated as a world class zoo anyway.
 
ANyhuis said:
@SnowLeopard:
So what are the "most overrated zoos? I'll give you a complicated answer. To me, the most overrated are any zoos that are highly rated based on how many AZA Exhibit of the Year awards they've won. There are a couple of these zoos I can think of, but I'll refrain from naming them. What's actually most overrated is the AZA EOTY award. As I've said many times, this award is more political than it is based on exhibit excellence. When none of Omaha's "Big 3" (Lied Jungle, Kingdoms of the Night, Desert Dome) have won the award, when Disney's Animal Kingdom has never won, and the same is true of Columbus' excellent zoo, that should tell you there's something false about this award.
Click to expand...

So, you appear to be saying that Woodland Park and the Bronx--as the biggest winners of AZA exhibit awards--are "over-rated." Checking back through my AZA magazines, it appears that Omaha, DAK and Columbus have never even applied for the AZA exhibit award since the Lied Jungle "controversy" back in 1992. That those institutions don't perceive enough value to even submit an application says something, but it certainly should not devalue those zoos that did successfully seek recognition for their work.

As for the merits:

--Desert Dome is spectacular but has many of the same flaws that the Lied Jungle is criticized for: too many animals crammed into small spaces.

--Kingdoms of the Night is innovative and brilliant, and would certainly have been given consideration for an award HAD IT BEEN SUBMITTED (which it wasn't). But turn the lights on and a lot of small, relatively bare exhibits would be readily apparent there too.

--DAK's Kilimanjaro Safari is perhaps the single best zoo exhibit ever created, and the Pangani Forest and Asian walking trail are both superb as well. I would guess the giant Disney company feels no compulsion to receive recognition from a little organization like the AZA, so why bother submitting for an award?

--Name an exhibit at Columbus that is deserving? The "Disney on a half-a-beer budget" Asian Passage or "Islands" complexes? And, once again, it appears that they have not--in the past--even applied for an exhibit award, although they have submitted this year for the new Polar and Brown Bear exhibits, which I haven't seen so I won't comment on.
 
Arizona Docent said:
What is wrong with Fort Worth? It is actually one of my favorite zoos (easily top 20). And I do not think it is over-rated because it is generally not rated as a world class zoo anyway.
Click to expand...

Problem is, Fort Worth claims that they are. There is a big sign at the entrance saying "Rated one of the top 5 zoos in the country."
 
Guys, I have to wonder if there is some consensus criteria that we could use to judge what a great zoo is.

Are there any zoos completely made of exhibits that most people, common zoogoers and uber-zoo nerds like ourselves, find attractive and enjoyable, and that animal care experts and most importantly, the animals, would recognize as excellent? Are there any zoos out there that have no outdated exhibits that should be bulldozed and replaced, but haven't because of money, institutional inertia, etc.?

A zoo completely made of exhibits like this AND with a functioning conservation program that makes some meaningful attempt to help sustain the wild cousins and ecosystems of some of their exhibited species is what I would define as a great zoo. I suppose good visitor amenities and education programs would also need to be present.

The only zoos that resemble this that I have visited are Disney's Animal Kingdom and Woodland Park in Seattle. Oakland comes close, but needs to upgrade the chimp exhibit. Bronx and San Diego are functionally there but still have a lot of old exhibits to upgrade. I have only visited the London and Taronga Zoos overseas so cannot comment on non-US zoos that may meet this criteria.
 
Last edited:
DavidBrown said:
Guys, I have to wonder if there is some consensus criteria that we could use to judge what a great zoo is.

Are there any zoos completely made of exhibits that most people, common zoogoers and uber-zoo nerds like ourselves find attractive and enjoyable, and that animal care experts and most importantly, the animals, would recognize as excellent? Are there any zoos out there that have no outdated exhibits that should be bulldozed and replaced, but haven't because of money, institutional inertia, etc.?

A zoo completely made of exhibits like this AND with a functioning conservation program that makes some meaningful attempt to help sustain the wild cousins and ecosystems of some of their exhibited species is what I would define as a great zoo. I suppose good visitor amenities and education programs would also need to be present.

The only zoos that resemble this that I have visited are Disney's Animal Kingdom and Woodland Park in Seattle. Oakland comes close, but needs to upgrade the chimp exhibit. Bronx and San Diego are functionally there but still have a lot of old exhibits to upgrade. I have only visited the London and Taronga Zoos overseas so cannot comment on non-US zoos that may meet this criteria.
Click to expand...

I would add the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum and Monterey Bay Aquarium to your short list, and absolutely remove Oakland! While Oakland only has a few really bad exhibits (not just the chimp cage), even their expansive habitats for elephants, lions, sun bears etc. are not especially well-designed--they are just big. And they really aren't doing that much for conservation, not surprising given their low budget status.
 
reduakari said:
I would add the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum and Monterey Bay Aquarium to your short list, and absolutely remove Oakland! While Oakland only has a few really bad exhibits (not just the chimp cage), even their expansive habitats for elephants, lions, sun bears etc. are not especially well-designed--they are just big. And they really aren't doing that much for conservation, not surprising given their low budget status.
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely I would add ASDM and Monterey Aquarium to that list.

Oakland Zoo has have been very helpful for giraffe conservation and are substantial supporters of Cynthia Moss's elephant work in Kenya. Will respectfully disagree also about the quality of the ele, lion, and sun bear exhibits. Oakland stays on my personal list, but I understand that this is not a widely-held view. I think that they are at least widely respected though for doing many things right.
 
Ooooh, I love reading these arguments!!! Everyone always seems to know what they're talking about and always has ways to quickly reply with witty points! :D Sorry, I know I frustrated a lot of people involved in this argument by saying something off-topic... My bad :o I just had to say it, though.
 
Nashville Zoo - not one bad exhibit that I can think of anywhere to be seen. Plus an interesting Civil War era farm house that you can take a guided tour of.
 
For me a great zoo is about size- breadth of collection,overall standard of exhibits[and bear in mind im not a HUGE immersion fan],serious intent[labelling,SOME conservationally relevant stuff etc].I like zoos that are full of animals not lawns,playgrounds,rides etc.It should take at least two days to see everything and have community relevance in pushing forward zoology and its importance to its visitors and the overall locality.My Big Five all have weaknesses in terms of exhibits,for instance some of the Lee Simmons stuff at Henry Doorly but if we are to consider zoo perfection then that becomes a different situation...its Durrell,Queens Zoo N.Y.,Sharjah and others all brilliant but not greats by sheer virtue of size.As for Sootys[love it J] assertion that somehow Belgium and Switzerland should be ahead of Britain just because they have a handful of good zoos in each nation...well, its a bit like saying that Scotland has a good football league because Celtic and Rangers play in it but you wouldnt put it ahead of ,say, France,would you?
 
DavidBrown said:
Guys, I have to wonder if there is some consensus criteria that we could use to judge what a great zoo is.
Click to expand...

Definitely not! This is a wholly subjective thing, and it is excellent that we will all disagree on what it is 'good' or 'bad'. I love reading what Red Uakari has to say, for example, and I find his points intelligent, well-made, and thought-provoking. Don't often agree with them though. I love the Berlin Tierpark - the greatest zoo in the world, in my opinion - but many others loathe the place. A recently-published book in the UK has attempted to give marks out of 6 for a whole host of exhibits in a whole host of zoos. It's a preposterous exercise which illustrates the impossibility of attempting to impose certainties on something that does not invite such black-and-white analysis.

Tim Brown said:
As for Sootys[love it J] assertion that somehow Belgium and Switzerland should be ahead of Britain just because they have a handful of good zoos in each nation...well, its a bit like saying that Scotland has a good football league because Celtic and Rangers play in it but you wouldnt put it ahead of ,say, France,would you?
Click to expand...

...possibly, but both Switzerland and Belgium have two great zoos, possibly three (not been to Parc Paradiso, as was, for a long time, so I'm not sure how that looks these days) - and I'm not wholly convinced that the UK has many more than that. Certainly, by head of population, the smaller countries out-strip the UK. To follow your football analogy, if the English Premier League was filled with teams such as QPR, Stoke and West Brom, then in some ways the Scottish league would be better, thanks to the might of the two Glasgow giants (and the mighty Hibernian of Edinburgh too), even if QPR and Stoke were clearly better than Motherwell, Inverness and St Johnstone. In zoo terms, I'm not sure the UK has a Chelsea or a Manchester Utd, let alone a Barcelona or a Real Madrid.
 
sooty mangabey said:
Definitely not! This is a wholly subjective thing, and it is excellent that we will all disagree on what it is 'good' or 'bad'. I love reading what Red Uakari has to say, for example, and I find his points intelligent, well-made, and thought-provoking. Don't often agree with them though. I love the Berlin Tierpark - the greatest zoo in the world, in my opinion - but many others loathe the place. A recently-published book in the UK has attempted to give marks out of 6 for a whole host of exhibits in a whole host of zoos. It's a preposterous exercise which illustrates the impossibility of attempting to impose certainties on something that does not invite such black-and-white analysis.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. It seems from the conversation generated here that there are at least two spheres of criteria for critiquing zoo quality in play: quality of exhibits and quality of collection. Some of the disagreements about ranking and rating zoos may be because people aren't even talking about the same things.

Discussion of what is "good" and "bad" is fun, but I think there would probably be majority consensus on the basics of at least "bad" is. Maybe "excellent" also? Is there any disagreement that Disney's Animal Kingdom has a truly excellent savanna exhibit complex (leaving aside whether access issues make it an excellent complex for the viewer) or that the Bronx Zoo has an excellent gorilla complex?
 
DavidBrown said:
Discussion of what is "good" and "bad" is fun, but I think there would probably be majority consensus on the basics of at least "bad" is. Maybe "excellent" also? Is there any disagreement that Disney's Animal Kingdom has a truly excellent savanna exhibit complex (leaving aside whether access issues make it an excellent complex for the viewer) or that the Bronx Zoo has an excellent gorilla complex?
Click to expand...

Maybe some consensus on what is bad - but not even that! Some - call them the Reduakari school - would certainly argue that the look of an enclosure is enough to make or break it; others - the UK school, possibly - are less concerned with aesthetics.

And on what is good? Certainly DAK has many critics; the Bronx gorilla complex looks wonderful to me, but there are aspects I either don't like (some of the pedagogical material, for example) or am unsure about (what happens in winter?).

To go back to the Berlin Tierpark example - I love the Alfred Brehm house. Many vocal critics would think this an absurd standpoint - and their reasons for thinking this are wholly valid. I just don't happen to agree with them...
 
I think it all boils down to what you personally are looking for in a zoo. For zoo enthusiasts there seem to be two camps: collection vs. exhibits. I think that is you are looking for collection SD probably wins. If you are looking for exhibits then Bronx or Woodland park is probably better. I personally like being in a world with both collectors and exhibitors. It makes it more interesting!
 
My most influential book as a child was James Fishers" Zoos of the World"..it was/is a classic and years ahead of its time.In it he lists the essential components of a mainstream[to use his words] zoo.Few zoos today make all his criteria..and certainly not London which would have done so when Fisher wrote the book in 1967.Zoo Berlin and Henry Doorly do so and Berlin with elan in every area-one or two bits of HD look slightly forgotten about,less cared about than the major exhibits somehow, but that might change with the new director.Essentially jbnbsn99 is correct- there are many roads to Damascus-however i would always take a good big zoo over a very good smaller one.
 
Tim Brown said:
My most influential book as a child was James Fishers" Zoos of the World"..it was/is a classic and years ahead of its time.In it he lists the essential components of a mainstream[to use his words] zoo.Few zoos today make all his criteria..and certainly not London which would have done so when Fisher wrote the book in 1967.Zoo Berlin and Henry Doorly do so and Berlin with elan in every area-one or two bits of HD look slightly forgotten about,less cared about than the major exhibits somehow, but that might change with the new director.Essentially jbnbsn99 is correct- there are many roads to Damascus-however i would always take a good big zoo over a very good smaller one.
Click to expand...

Hey Tim, I LOVED that book also. I must have checked it out from the library a billion times. Could you list his essential components for the mainstream zoo if you have them handy? It would be fascinating to see what the 1967 criteria are compared to what we are discussing now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top