Agree or disagree
- Thread starter Jabiru96
- Start date
Nice to see Basel, Berlin and Vienna all included - particularly as these are generally very 'traditional' zoos (Berlin in particular). Not visited any of the others so not sure. Would have thought Rotterdam was a strong contender for inclusion, though, and also Zurich.
Only on about 3 or 4. Some of these are just a joke. Pretoria? Smithsonian? Toronto? Please.....
The presence of Basel, Berlin, Beauval and the National Zoo, South Africa in both lists suggests similar people have been quizzed - none of those strike me as obvious choices for a general travel website!
(Good to see Chester and Prague get some love on the second list - but still no Rotterdam or Zurich!)
(Good to see Chester and Prague get some love on the second list - but still no Rotterdam or Zurich!)
Meaghan Edwards
Well-Known Member
Some of these zoos I've only heard about here, but I do agree with the ones I'm familiar with. Toronto may have some out of date exhibits like most zoos do (including some on this list), but they do go above and beyond for conservation work.
I agree, Zoo Vienna (Tiergarten Schoenbrunn) is one of the best zoos in the world.
Except one thing, according to the Forbe's list there are "whales" in the Artic Polarium? Really? At Zoo Vienna's Polarium there are only penguins and seals. So the whales there must be special tiny little or invisible creatures.
Except one thing, according to the Forbe's list there are "whales" in the Artic Polarium? Really? At Zoo Vienna's Polarium there are only penguins and seals. So the whales there must be special tiny little or invisible creatures.
A joke? Please state why? National and Toronto are both great institutions, yes they have there flaws but so do ALL zoos!
Toronto: big collection, good conservation efforts...but look at the managerial dysfunction! And from an exhibit perspective--almost everything needs to be replaced or massively upgraded.
National Zoo--a very similar analysis.
Both of these are major zoos with very creditable conservation/research programs. But the exhibits and guest experience at both are lacking, at least in comparison to any competently-produced list of the world's top ten zoos. These two would have difficulty cracking the top 10 North American zoo list. At least ten in Europe alone are IMO superior: Berlin East, Berlin West, Leipzig, Arnhem, Rotterdam, Prague, Chester, Emmen, Cologne, Zurich, Basle....
The list is humorous but highly inaccurate. I can name 30 American zoos that are better than Toronto Zoo, as that particular zoo is attempting to raise funds as just about everything there needs to be replaced.
The list is missing San Diego Zoo, San Diego Wild Animal Park and loads of top notch European collections. The list has the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., as the 3rd best in the world? Holy smokes Batman!
The list is missing San Diego Zoo, San Diego Wild Animal Park and loads of top notch European collections. The list has the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., as the 3rd best in the world? Holy smokes Batman!
So where's the context?
In who's eyes? What standards are they judging by?
It's entirely possible for any zoo to look absolutely spic-and-span to the untrained eye, but have horrible animal care. In order to truly judge any zoo, you absolutely, positively, HAVE to know as much about exotic critters as possible, and how the zoo you're looking at operates in terms of animal environments, enrichment, diet, vet care, etc. It's called "context."
Some examples.
Greater Vancouver Zoo: Looks great from the outside, has a slick web site, makes a big thing about being CAZA accredited. If you know nothing about exotic animal care, it may even appear there's nothing wrong. However, this is also the zoo which put Cape Buffalo in with their zebras, tried to cover up the resultant stress-induced death of all four said zebras, AND which continues to employ a so-called "master falconer" who has cost 11 of his birds their lives in a three-year span.
This is also the same zoo which has been under investigation by the BCSPCA and CAZA -- multiple times! In fact, they're still under investigation even as I type this.
Alabama Gulf Coast Zoo: Tiny, never been accredited by anyone I know of, has all the appearance of a typical "roadside" attraction from the outside.
Yet, this tiny zoo has some of the most dedicated staff and some of the best animal care I have seen ANYwhere, hands down! Rarely have I seen animals which are better fed and cared for.
My point is "10 Best" or "10 Worst," or however many you're rating, is meaningless without a broad context. The author of that list seemed to be fixated on two basic things: How old the parks were, and how many animals are in their respective collections. That's hardly enough to even begin to consider "best" or "worst."
As a side note -- That's a nice photo of a bald eagle on the blurb about the Smithsonian. Too bad the bird also looks like s/he needs some serious beak coping (necessary raptor care in any captive environment).
Happy travels.
In who's eyes? What standards are they judging by?
It's entirely possible for any zoo to look absolutely spic-and-span to the untrained eye, but have horrible animal care. In order to truly judge any zoo, you absolutely, positively, HAVE to know as much about exotic critters as possible, and how the zoo you're looking at operates in terms of animal environments, enrichment, diet, vet care, etc. It's called "context."
Some examples.
Greater Vancouver Zoo: Looks great from the outside, has a slick web site, makes a big thing about being CAZA accredited. If you know nothing about exotic animal care, it may even appear there's nothing wrong. However, this is also the zoo which put Cape Buffalo in with their zebras, tried to cover up the resultant stress-induced death of all four said zebras, AND which continues to employ a so-called "master falconer" who has cost 11 of his birds their lives in a three-year span.
This is also the same zoo which has been under investigation by the BCSPCA and CAZA -- multiple times! In fact, they're still under investigation even as I type this.
Alabama Gulf Coast Zoo: Tiny, never been accredited by anyone I know of, has all the appearance of a typical "roadside" attraction from the outside.
Yet, this tiny zoo has some of the most dedicated staff and some of the best animal care I have seen ANYwhere, hands down! Rarely have I seen animals which are better fed and cared for.
My point is "10 Best" or "10 Worst," or however many you're rating, is meaningless without a broad context. The author of that list seemed to be fixated on two basic things: How old the parks were, and how many animals are in their respective collections. That's hardly enough to even begin to consider "best" or "worst."
As a side note -- That's a nice photo of a bald eagle on the blurb about the Smithsonian. Too bad the bird also looks like s/he needs some serious beak coping (necessary raptor care in any captive environment).
Happy travels.
Its possible since its a list on a travel blog that its not really a list of the 10 best zoo's, but more the 10 best travel locations with good zoo's. If you are planning to travel out of country and sometimes even out of your continent, your plans will likely include more then just visiting the Zoo (I should hope at least).
All due respect to the fine city of Basel but it's hardly a big-hitter on the tourist trail.
And I've been on many (many) holidays where the main aim is the zoos. It's got me to many places I'd not have been to otherwise - who knew Wroclaw had such a nice town centre? Or Bratislava? - and we always make the effort to see as much of the place as we can, but there's no hiding the fact that it's the zoos that bring us there.
Not all of my holidays are like this, of course, but quite a few are. Next stop: Czech Republic!
To me Europe is practically just one big country
I'm not saying that its not the zoo that brings you there, but that if your going to a Zoo then you'll likely want to go to one that also has other things to do while you are there, proportional to how difficult it is to get to the place.
I'm not saying that its not the zoo that brings you there, but that if your going to a Zoo then you'll likely want to go to one that also has other things to do while you are there, proportional to how difficult it is to get to the place.
To me Europe is practically just one big country
A deceptively controversial statement!
(both in modern politics and historially)
This is of course true - but the zoos help!
Incidentally, I forgot one of the best 'places-I-wouldn't-have-got-to-(or-at-least-not-for-much-longer)-if-it-weren't-for-zoos' - Munich. The pattern of the trip meant we had a fair amount of time to see the city, and it was great. The big beer houses, more beer round the Chinese Tower in the park, the Natural History Museum at the stunning Schloss Nymphenburg (with it's complete mounted Quagga skin), the very attractive city centre - even the Olympic Park and the BMW Museum (and the SeaLife centre, once we'd managed to beat the queue). We stayed in the suburbs and on the night we arrived (about a month before the main Oktoberfest) there was a local beer festival going on. We ended up sat all night at these long tables drinking beer amongst the locals, watching the 'Holding a Stein of Beer at Arms' Length' Contest - was a cracking (iif somewhat drunken!) night.
NB: This post does not endorse binge drinking. Very often. Don't drink and drive. At all.
EDIT: Just realised this is way off-topic - sorry all. Back to zoo-ranking!
Blackduiker
Well-Known Member
What credible list of the world's top zoos, could even think to exclude San Diego Zoo or Wild Animal Park? And Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo should be a close contender as well.