Wildlife World Zoo & Aquarium is worth visiting for all zoo fans just to see the vast array of animals on display, and it took me close to 5 hours to see everything. There are some nice touches, such as the 6 tanks in the two main gift shops with fish, turtles and juvenile alligators. The unfortunate fact remains that almost all of the birds are in wire aviaries, the cats are in metal boxes, and the primates are in functional cages that are aesthetically brutal. However, most of the hoofstock exhibits are spacious paddocks and the large herds are impressive to see. By far and away the best section is the series of aquarium buildings near the entrance, as those structures contain many high-quality habitats even though there are some hit-and-miss sections.
It appears to me that the attraction is a bit of a hodge-podge of a variety of captive wildlife facilities. There are the basic aviaries in long rows that resemble a breeding facility for birds; primate cages that are similar to the ones found in long rows at Santa Ana Zoo (the “50 monkey zoo”); big cats in enclosures that would fit in well at Howletts in England; and large hoofstock paddocks that hold an excellent collection. Then there are the sleek and modern aquarium buildings that have transformed the zoo into a year-round destination for folks in Arizona, and yet there is also a theme park element as there are 5 different rides all over the grounds. What does this privately-owned zoo aspire to be?
The Wal-mart quality version of Disney's Animal Kingdom?
Seriously though, who owns this place and what are their motives? Do they contribute to any conservation programs? Do they aspire to AZA accreditation standards? I think you mentioned that they had been accredited and then got booted out? Will I ever stop asking questions?
The Wal-mart quality version of Disney's Animal Kingdom?
Seriously though, who owns this place and what are their motives? Do they contribute to any conservation programs? Do they aspire to AZA accreditation standards? I think you mentioned that they had been accredited and then got booted out? Will I ever stop asking questions?
The owners of this zoo opted out of AZA (as opposed to being "booted out"), largely because they objected to the various strictures of AZA's SSPs and other animal management programs. At one time the organization was very involved with the ZAA, which could be characterized as the "Tea Party" end of the US zoo spectrum.
The owners of this zoo opted out of AZA (as opposed to being "booted out"), largely because they objected to the various strictures of AZA's SSPs and other animal management programs. At one time the organization was very involved with the ZAA, which could be characterized as the "Tea Party" end of the US zoo spectrum.
@reduakari: what is your feeling about whether non-accredited zoos should be visited and supported? There was some discussion about this on another thread related to this zoo. Some of these enclosures look okay and there are animals that I would want to see at this zoo (sharks, palm cockatoos, etc.), but I'm not sure that I would visit given the conditions of some of the animals and the non-accreditation issue. There seem to be several zoos like this one in the US...do you think that they have a legitimate role to play in the zoo world (e.g., conservation education, participation in breeding programs of some endangered species) or are they best avoided?
I will chime in here. I've been to plenty of non-accredited zoos. Some ARE worth visiting. Some of these places are the only hopes for some of the animals that have vanished from North American collections. Some of these places are also trying very hard to become AZA, but either lack the funds or other resources.
I will chime in here. I've been to plenty of non-accredited zoos. Some ARE worth visiting. Some of these places are the only hopes for some of the animals that have vanished from North American collections. Some of these places are also trying very hard to become AZA, but either lack the funds or other resources.
Thanks jbnbsn99. There are a few non-accredited zoos in California, but most (all?) of them are local zoos in fairly small towns that largely have rescued non-releasable native North American animals (e.g., raptors that got shot, black bears that got too close to humans because they were raiding garbage cans). There are no large scale private zoos like the Wildlife World Zoo here that I am aware of. I appreciate hearing your opinion, and perhaps others will chime in too.
Wildlife World Zoo must have an extremely wealthy owner(s), as with the 3 and soon to be 4 major aquarium buildings (which cost a fortune to operate) and the proposed 55-acre expansion the establishment has one of the largest animal collections in all of North America. It is most definitely a for-profit facility, with 5 different rides and there will certainly be some kind of safari ride attached to the African area in the expansion.
I am quite curious as to where the collection stands in comparison to other major American zoos, as with 17 primate species, many aquatic animals, a staggering number of bird aviaries, a small mammal house with many rare specimens, a reptile house, and all sorts of mammals it must have one of the most diverse collections on the continent. Some hoofstock species that are on display are practically unheard of in many AZA-accredited facilities, such as sable antelope, red lechwe, impala, ellipsis waterbuck, axis deer, Arabian oryx and beisa oryx. I see a LOT of zoos and for one facility to have all of those species is astonishing.
The flip-side is that almost all of the primates are kept in wire-fronted or chain-link enclosures, there are 3 separate white tiger cages and the zoo actively promotes the breeding of those cats, and in general most of the exhibits are subpar in all areas of the zoo. The place is literally a breeding facility (in the 1970's before it opened to the public in the 1980's) that has expanded phenomenally, but the growth in the animal collection has not been met by significant improvements with the exhibits. I've seen exactly 100 zoos and aquariums just in the United States, and I think that almost every single one of them has been AZA-accredited at the time of my visit. Without checking my lifetime list on my computer I would declare that Wildlife World and Cougar Mountain might be the only two non-accredited facilities, and since my visit Zoo Montana has lost its accreditation as well. I usually steer clear of such establishments, as with around 220 AZA-accredited places to tour why bother with the smaller, crappier ones? I visited Cougar Mountain as it is in Seattle and relatively close to my hometown in Canada, and Wildlife World's animal collection is amazing and so that enticed me to check out the zoo.
