Rosamond Gifford Zoo always reminds me of a mini-Minnesota Zoo. Both facilities have an entrance area with buildings full of animals, then large outdoor walking loops with cold-weather species. Minnesota is obviously the better zoo, but Rosamond Gifford has a spacious Asian Elephant complex that is a big draw for visitors...and White-lipped Deer are cool to see for zoo nerds!
@snowleopard If you can see them Saw enough to say I did officially see them, but couldn't make out more than their silhouettes. They need some scattered shade so they don't all bunch up against the fence. The takin weren't out, either, so the two species I went there to see (never seen takin), I didn't really see. Kind of a big deal when it's a 6 hour drive, haha.
Interesting comparison. I'd really like to make it to MN one day. Rosamond had some nice stuff, but some of it was quite jarring. I really wasn't expecting something like their bear exhibit in an AZA zoo! That goes for all of the leashed BOP, as well. The building was super confusing, with no signs indicating you could go in areas and some parts being rather old looking.
That is an interesting comment about the bear exhibit, as I didn't think it was too bad. However, I visited almost a full decade ago and, looking back, the Andean bear exhibit really isn't that large. It is far superior to many other bear enclosures in non-accredited zoos, but it is looking a little old and mock-rock dominated. Here is a photo of mine from July 2012:
@snowleopard It still looks about the same. The iron railings with the terrible mock rock at the top were the most jarring, since it's the first thing you see, being a pit. The inside isn't awful, as you said it's better than most non-AZA places at least, but it still doesn't really match up with a nice AZA zoo.
@TinoPup Apparently I am the outlier, but I actually find this exhibit very attractive. At 6500 square feet its larger than many newer "nice AZA zoo" exhibits, there are countless, an easy example could be Toledo's polar bear exhibit, 1000 less square feet, all concrete, and a much larger species which is entirely terrestrial. And yet these exhibits receive far less criticism.
I happen to find this aged mock rock quite attractive, and with foliage, plenty of natural substrate, climbing structures, a significant water feature this exhibit appears to be perfectly acceptable in my eyes. I think to a degree people in the zoo world have cast too wide of a net in the pursuit of eradicating undersized grottos and pits of the past and condemn all exhibits of a certain age.
The AZA accredited Little Rock Zoo holds four sloth bears in two tiny old grottos totaling under 1500 square feet, those exhibits should be rightfully demolished because it does not meet the needs of its inhabitants. However I see people regularly trashing exhibits which are perfectly suitable just because they are older. Advocating the destruction of every exhibit past a certain age is unnecessary and potentially damaging both in terms of resources being diverted from other more pressing needs zoos have, and the destruction of an entire era of zoological architecture.
I haven't seen Toledo's or Little Rock's so can't compare.
It's not just about age; I love historical stuff. But historical stuff shouldn't be used, at least for whatever it was likely made for. It isn't just about getting rid of the old. Zoos are working extremely hard to get the general public to move past the "zoos are cages" belief. A large part of that is moving on from the grottoes and iron fencing that screams captivity. The public perception IS an extremely pressing need, especially for AZA zoos who want people to think of them as a place where species are being conserved, not owned and caged solely for our entertainment.
