San Diego Zoo The Greatest Or Most Overrated?

reduakari said:
And they really aren't doing that much for conservation, not surprising given their low budget status.
Click to expand...

Again, going back to jbnbsn99's point that it's a matter of perspective, in my case, I'm the author of a travel guidebook to American zoos. My main audience is families and travelers, and not so much zoo fanatics like those here on ZooChat. To my audience, conservation is pretty meaningless. To such families, they probably don't care much whether or not the Zoo has a great conservation outreach in Kenya to giraffes. What they care about is whether their 5-year-old is getting a good view of the giraffes in the Zoo, and whether that child can even feed the giraffes. They might care that the Zoo is making them feel like they are actually "in" Africa when viewing those giraffes, such as at Cheyenne Mountain's Rift Valley exhibit. They also care if the Zoo they're at has all (or most) of the major animals they're expecting to show their child, and they also might be thrilled to show their child some unusual animals, such as okapis or moose.

This is why I don't include conservation efforts hardly at all when evaluating what makes a "great" zoo. To my audience, it's just not a big deal. But of course, I totally agree that conservation is very important to the betterment of the world.
 
DavidBrown said:
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.
Click to expand...

I too loved that book, as well as another one that came out about the same time: "Zoos of the World" by R. Kirschofer, who was I think Assistant Director of Frankfurt Zoo at the time.

Fisher's book lists 29 "Basic Space Units of a Mainstream Zoo" ranging from Small Mammals to Flower Gardens, and including the delightfully-named 'Vast Ungulates." (that would be pachyderms).
 
jbnbsn99 said:
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!
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think there's a lot more to it. If there are these 2 camps, then I straddle them, as I think BOTH (collection and exhibits) are important in making a "great" zoo. There are other factors for me too, such as "atmosphere" (does the Zoo make me feel like I'm in an exotic or exciting place), entertainment (yes, rides and shows), etc.

When Jon (my coauthor) and I have discussed this topic, I've always boiled it down to this question: "What about the Zoo would make that family, driving through the city on the major highway, want to consider pulling off the highway, finding the Zoo, paying the admission, and spending a day of their vacation (holiday) at the Zoo?" Certainly exciting and unique exhibits like Congo Gorilla Forest, Arctic Ring of Life, Kilamanjaro Safari, or Omaha's Big 3 might entice them off the highway. Also feature animals, such as giant pandas, koalas, or manatees might do it. And yes, if they hear the Zoo has a huge collection, such as at San Diego or one of the Berlin zoos, that would make them want to stop. Also, a highly acclaimed dolphin show, or a cool safari ride -- such as a monorail or sky ride through the animal exhibits -- might get them considering a day at the Zoo.

Side question: jbnbsn99, when did you become a ZooChat Moderator? I think you may have found your calling in life! Congrats!
 
ANyhuis said:
This is why I don't include conservation efforts hardly at all when evaluating what makes a "great" zoo. To my audience, it's just not a big deal. But of course, I totally agree that conservation is very important to the betterment of the world.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Quoted from one of my posts on an Elephant Odyssey (SD Zoo) thread:
What's unfortunate is that with the many other meaningless things in this world, ignorant zoo visitors who go, (reluctantly, might I add) just to see "smelly animals," are often too lazy to take any of that [meaning conservation efforts] in!

Even the simplest of information about what's being done for endangered animals doesn't get absorbed by the average visitor, and with conservation efforts being ignored by those who doesn't support it, there's barely anyone listening out there!

Conservation doesn't mean much to people who... you know what I'm saying... It won't grab anybody's attention. If one zoo started releasing Przewalski's horses back into the wild and had their conservation efforts discussed on the news, it wouldn't make anyone say, "Oh, let's go to So-and-So Zoo! They're doing conservation work!" But, if that same zoo got pandas, or had a new baby elephant, giraffe, polar bear or whatever, guests would come flooding in!
As ANyhuis says, you wouldn't consider conservation when evaluating zoo greatness. It's just not something that plays a factor. (At least I think this way, I'm sure many of you disagree). Yes, it's extremely important for the rest of the world, but not for zoo popularity. Would I want my zoo to have tens of different programs supporting endangered species and raising money for better wildlife causes? You bet I would. But is it going to do anything to attract larger amounts of guests? Probably not.
 
Very interesting ANyhuis..of course i bought your book when it came out and figured by the animals listed=Bongo ANTELOPE,Dik dik ANTELOPE,just what market it was aimed at whereas my guide to british zoos is aimed fair and square at enthusiasts.Very interesting that you state that U.S. zoo visitors arent really interested in conservation...just a good day out. My analysis of a zoo can often be comparable to a food critic in that i evaluate the eating experience not the calorific input i.e.my enjoyment of walking around not what the zoo is up to in the Madagascar wetlands for instance.
And to Mr Brown here goes -1.Small Mammal House 2.Primate House 3.Small Carnivores[includes canids]4.Bears 5.Pinnipeds.6.Pachyderms 7.Large Ungulates[amazingly he includes hyraxes in this]8.Sheep and goats9.Penguins 10.Ratites 11.Bird House 12.Water birds 13.Birds of prey 14.Pheasantry,cranes etc 15.Reptile House16.Aquarium17.Insect House18.Exotarium or tropicarium19.Childrens Zoo..thereafter various bits of non animal infrastructure..hmm no mention of nocturnal ive just realised.And it is largely taxonomic of course,no mention of zoogeography.By the way, on a complete collectors point the book came out with completely different covers in theU.K. and the U.S.
 
AnaheimZoo said:
Exactly! Quoted from one of my posts on an Elephant Odyssey (SD Zoo) thread:
What's unfortunate is that with the many other meaningless things in this world, ignorant zoo visitors who go, (reluctantly, might I add) just to see "smelly animals," are often too lazy to take any of that [meaning conservation efforts] in!

Even the simplest of information about what's being done for endangered animals doesn't get absorbed by the average visitor, and with conservation efforts being ignored by those who doesn't support it, there's barely anyone listening out there!

Conservation doesn't mean much to people who... you know what I'm saying... It won't grab anybody's attention. If one zoo started releasing Przewalski's horses back into the wild and had their conservation efforts discussed on the news, it wouldn't make anyone say, "Oh, let's go to So-and-So Zoo! They're doing conservation work!" But, if that same zoo got pandas, or had a new baby elephant, giraffe, polar bear or whatever, guests would come flooding in!
As ANyhuis says, you wouldn't consider conservation when evaluating zoo greatness. It's just not something that plays a factor. (At least I think this way, I'm sure many of you disagree). Yes, it's extremely important for the rest of the world, but not for zoo popularity. Would I want my zoo to have tens of different programs supporting endangered species and raising money for better wildlife causes? You bet I would. But is it going to do anything to attract larger amounts of guests? Probably not.
Click to expand...

An average visitor wouldn't considet conservation when evaluating zoos. However, most of the people on this site aren't average visitors, and conservation should be taken into consideration. Would you say a zoo is great if they were killing hundreds of tigers in the wild? Of course not. But the average visitor wouldn't know, so that wouldn't have any effect on them. I don't think we should rate zoos on how they are perceived by the average visitor who goes only to see the "stupid monkeys" or whatever, that would be too easy. We should rate a zoo on how knowlegable people, such as ourselves, perceive said zoo. With this considered, zoos like San Diego and Omaha may go down in ranking, while ones like ASDM or Woodland Park may go up.
 
Last edited:
@Anaheim and @Tim Brown:
You guys are slightly misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that the average (America) zoo visitor doesn't care about conservation. I think they actually do. They care that the Zoo is helping keep the animals they are looking from going extinct. The care that the snow leopards or Amur tigers just had a baby -- not just because it's cute, but also because they realize the species is being furthered by the addition of one more healthy animal.

Here at the Indianapolis Zoo (my local zoo), the dolphin shows are just about the most popular thing at the Zoo -- almost always packed full of people. The shows are filled with not dolphin "tricks", but also a strong conservation message. People are told how to help dolphins in the wild -- by conserving water, not throwing trash in the Sea, etc. This message is not, I believe, ignored. And it certainly doesn't keep anyone from wanting to come back and see the dolphins again.

What I did mean when I said "conservation is unimportant" (in determining what is a great zoo) is that some folks like to point to zoos' foreign conservation programs, and say that makes the zoo great. One particular zoo is famous for its dozens and dozens of conservation programs all over the world. That is certainly very, very commendable, but my view (as a travel book author) is that most (not all) zoo visitors could care less. So I give zero "extra points" for having lots of foreign conservation programs.
 
Zoos have a duty to try and influence"the great unwashed"..one of my favourite exhibits at Sedgwick County is the anti-rattlesnake round-up one- small,rather low-key but if it changes 20 opinions on this barbaric practise then so worthwhile. KCZooFan is right,HERE the opinion of Joe Public doesnt count but in the world at large sadly they keep zoos open for the rest of us.However with enough of their money all is possible -every endangered species can be saved, every zoo can be wonderful.Ive often thought that a conservation EXIT to a zoo would be a great idea..in other words if you have appreciated what you have just seen,if you want to make a tangible extra contribution then pay to get OUT!
 
Tim Brown said:
whereas my guide to british zoos is aimed fair and square at enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

Wow, now I know why your name is so familiar to me! Sorry, but I first became acquainted with your book very recently when searching Amazon for Anthony Sheridan's new book. I very much DO want to order your book, though. But my (USA) Amazon site says your book is "out of print". Is that true? If so, where can I order one?

By the way, I called them "bongo antelope" to help identify what kinds of animals they are. The average non-Zoo enthusiast has no idea what a "bongo" is -- except for a kind of drum.
 
You can find it at Parallels H-Sphere zoochatters ,anywhere in the world, can forget postal charges we will take care of that[the prices are geared to UK buyers].We take paypaL,credit cards. Thanks!
 
Hmm that didnt work-computers they are largely alien to me -i typed in the izes name and it came up as something else! You could google the INDEPENDENT ZOO ENTHUSIASTS SOCIETY.Me? im off to bed scratching my head!
 
ANyhuis said:
@Anaheim and @Tim Brown:
You guys are slightly misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that the average (America) zoo visitor doesn't care about conservation. I think they actually do. They care that the Zoo is helping keep the animals they are looking from going extinct. The care that the snow leopards or Amur tigers just had a baby -- not just because it's cute, but also because they realize the species is being furthered by the addition of one more healthy animal.

Here at the Indianapolis Zoo (my local zoo), the dolphin shows are just about the most popular thing at the Zoo -- almost always packed full of people. The shows are filled with not dolphin "tricks", but also a strong conservation message. People are told how to help dolphins in the wild -- by conserving water, not throwing trash in the Sea, etc. This message is not, I believe, ignored. And it certainly doesn't keep anyone from wanting to come back and see the dolphins again.

What I did mean when I said "conservation is unimportant" (in determining what is a great zoo) is that some folks like to point to zoos' foreign conservation programs, and say that makes the zoo great. One particular zoo is famous for its dozens and dozens of conservation programs all over the world. That is certainly very, very commendable, but my view (as a travel book author) is that most (not all) zoo visitors could care less. So I give zero "extra points" for having lots of foreign conservation programs.
Click to expand...

Scientific institutions like Natural History Museums and Botanical Gardens (not to mention universities) are rated as much for their "behind the scenes" research and conservation activities as by their public offerings. If zoos are serious about being effective players in education and conservation, they make investments in those areas. Any rating of zoos--aside from those based explicitly and exclusively on guest experience--should take into account the level and effectiveness of the non-public science, education and conservation work conducted by the institution. While there are some zoos that do good work in these areas but fall down in the exhibit and visitor experience areas, it's often those zoos that deliver the best experience that can generate the resources to do meaningful conservation and science ("no margin, no mission"....)
 
Last edited:
reduakari said:
Any rating of zoos--aside from those based explicitly and exclusively on guest experience--should take into account the level and effectiveness of the non-public science, education and conservation work conducted by the institution.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But keep in mind that when I rate zoos, I do so with my own particular audience in mind -- tourists and families. They are much more into what is seen right in front of them.

@Tim Brown, I just ordered your book. Thanks for the link, Sooty.
 
@KCZooFan, sorry if I was unclear, but of course we ZooChatters shouldn't evaluate zoos on those kinds of guests. Sorry if what I said made it seem like I think we should. We aren't your average zoo visitors, and what I was trying to say was that conservation messages don't typically get through to these kind of visitors, personally who I am not very fond of. I completely agree with you.

@ANyhuis, yes I may have misunderstood you, and I think I need to be a bit more careful with what I say. :o Maybe the average visitor does care about conservation, but from my personal zoo experiences, it doesn't seem like it. It might be that I'm not looking hard enough, but I'm yet to find someone who isn't rushing through the conservation section of Bronx Zoo's Tiger Mountain, where all the important messages about endangered tigers are posted. To me it seems like those signs are almost completely ignored. For those few people I have seen reading them, I appreciate them.

I feel if an important conservation effort was put forth, it wouldn't be very successful in terms of attracting visitors because only those people supporting conservation would respond. But then again, zoos aren't doing conservation for popularity, so that wouldn't really be paid attention to. Would the efforts be successful overall? Of course. Because the message would still get through to those people who do appreciate conservation. As to whether it makes the zoo a better zoo, that depends how you look at it.

Also, about the thing you said involving dolphins... Are you suggesting that if a person went to the dolphin show just because they liked dolphins would end up wanting to conserve because that was the main part of the show? Like if they went just to see the dolphins, but then ended up hearing the important message that would change how they looked at dolphins, not just as cute animals but as animals who need help, which would make them, in turn, want to help out.

I'll admit, I was a bit unclear with what I said, so if you have anything that needs some clarification (or if I didn't respond to any points you made) just tell me. I'm still a bit unclear myself as to where I was going with that... I'm a little foggy today... :confused:
 
Last edited:
ANyhuis said:
Fair enough. But keep in mind that when I rate zoos, I do so with my own particular audience in mind -- tourists and families. They are much more into what is seen right in front of them.

@Tim Brown, I just ordered your book. Thanks for the link, Sooty.
Click to expand...

Yes, and by the same token, the vast majority of people do not rate museums with anything in mind other than the visitor experience in the museum.
 
mweb08 said:
Yes, and by the same token, the vast majority of people do not rate museums with anything in mind other than the visitor experience in the museum.
Click to expand...

But the general reputations of the great ones--American Museum of Natural History, California Academy of Sciences, Kew Gardens, St. Louis Botanical Gardens, Paris Museum of Natural History, etc.--are based in (large) part on non-guest experience variables. Just like Oxford, Harvard or Stanford are held in great esteem not simply because of the quality of their undergraduate courses. "Greatness" in anything involves more than just the stuff at the surface--it's about depth and breadth.
 
reduakari said:
But the general reputations of the great ones--American Museum of Natural History, California Academy of Sciences, Kew Gardens, St. Louis Botanical Gardens, Paris Museum of Natural History, etc.--are based in (large) part on non-guest experience variables. Just like Oxford, Harvard or Stanford are held in great esteem not simply because of the quality of their undergraduate courses. "Greatness" in anything involves more than just the stuff at the surface--it's about depth and breadth.
Click to expand...

That's fine, as long as you realize that most people don't really care. When reviews or lists of best zoos or museums come out, most don't really factor that stuff in, at least not much. Most people who are visiting don't either.

I personally have no issue separating the two when I'm rating a zoo or a museum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top