Are zoos in general and San Diego in particular moving in a more negative direction?

N

Norwegian moose

Well-Known Member
All my life I have been fascinated by zoos. But lately one thing have struck me. I always hear so many negative comments of the like that "Yeah, that exhibit or that animal species was designed or displayed much better before". Especially I have heard this a lot from American zoos, especially San Diego Zoo. Of what I have heard that zoo is no longer as great as it used to be. I have myself not visited the San Diego Zoo, but juding from the negative comments here that zoo could just as well be a run down roadside type of attraction. The main source of critisism is the new Elephant Odessey(EO). I have heard all kinds of people complaining about this exhibit, and other exhibits all over the North-American continent with comments that say that all things was so much better the way it used to be.

So, my question is, have zoos in general got much worse in the last years, or have they become better? Unarguably zoos have gotten big improvents in the last decades. They have moved away from being only animal collectors and becoming modern conservation, animal welfare based instituons, with enclosures that look more or less like their real habitat. But have these "new waves" been hurtfull for the older zoos that, profited on being more like collectors than conservationists? Have the cutback of species in many of the older zoos created an evil spiral, where the exhibit quality have gone more and more downwards? I dont know why, but I would like to know the reason of why many members on this site critisise many well respected zoos so much, when they in earlier times have blessed them.
 
Or are people being more critical of zoos because they have a single vision for what exhibit design and collection management should look like and are not open to other alternatives?
 
people like to complain, thats a fact.

the global recession is a factor.

insurance liability is another factor.
 
I think E/O deserves its criticism because its fairly dumb idea in the first place and poorly executed. Don't do an exhibit of Pleistocene animals until you get the Colombian Mammoth cloned.

I think some of the moves towards smaller collections in larger exhibits are practical realities like others have mentioned.

But I find it hard to fathom that in the age of the internet a crappy Elephant exhibit gets 100 times the press of 3 great new ones in Dallas, Reid Park, and Birmingham.

I mean shouldn't the Zoo of Zoos be the one attempting an all Bull African Elephant herd? After all with the Safari Park they have a great asset of space.
 
@Norwegian moose: Hmmh, being self-critical, I must confess that in general I have that view of "everything was better in the past". But let's look at it point for point.

First: When I (and I think most others who know SDZ and SD Safari Park) criticize those Institutions, then I do it from the very high level/standards those Parks (still) have in the zoo world. When it comes to SDZ, I just expect more in keeping and presenting animals then from other parks. (So that's the main reason why I am disappointed from e. g. EO). Anyway, they are miles away from being a roadside zoo (I think you were exaggerating a little).

Second: When I look at the (big) new zoo exhibits and also new built (or rebuilt) zoos in the last 10, 15 years that come to my mind, I say to the contrary that most of them are very good to excellent and so much better then the old ones. But that still means that they are (mostly) not perfect and so I think it is necessary or at least "okay" to talk about it. Also, I share the opinions and references of @tschandler71 and Tropikal.

Third: I hope, one day you will have the occasion to visit SDZ and its Safari Park by yourself and then I am glad to hear your opinion.
 
it certainly seems like an amazing facility.

I have worked with elephants in free and protected contact and been involved with breeding programs and births, you have peeked my curiosity and I must say I dont know much about the elephant program there however California is usually the cutting edge of husbandry and ethics as it relates to employees and animals.

I think "zoomanaic" is on target however if you havent worked there you dont really know
 
I would say your question is very general and its tough to make a broad statement such as "zoos are moving in negative direction." Often zoos are in different places and zoos have many different parts that are always moving. Some zoos are better at some things and some zoos are terrible at some things. I think the people before are right when they say you have to work at the place to really understand the atmosphere there. I think it really comes down to the organization and operation of the zoo as a whole, and whether they are progressive and consistently collaborate between different peoples.

In the terms of San Diego, many people here feel that a zoo with the kind of resources can do a lot better. They have the staff, the money, and the public support to do great things, but people here know about other zoos and can see that zoos with less have done a lot more. As a San Diegan, I am annoyed that we have so much and it doesn't seem like their professions are able to collaborate and make great exhibits that are holistic. I have heard elephant keepers praise EO from a management standpoint, but its ugly and people don't learn anything from it.

Back to zoos in general, I think a lot of zoos are progressing, just not at the same rate and in the same places. Some zoos are doing a better job of educating visitors. Some zoos are making better exhibits. Some zoos are changing to greener practices. I think if you look at the history for each individual zoo, you'll begin to have a larger appreciation for what they are doing now. When I think about the future of zoos that I am excited about, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Jacksonville, and Saint Louis come to mind.
 
I agree that others zoos are doing more with less. I think some of it is just the natural evolution of other zoos "catching up" to SDZ's standards in some areas. But some of it is San Diego resting on its laurels.

20 years ago, if a zoo attempted "something never done in the zoo world before" it would have been San Diego or the Bronx Zoo. Its hard to believe in this day in age its a small former municipal zoo in a city of under a million people in a state with less than five million. But again like I said before its also hard to believe that more has been written about the crappy exhibit than the ground breaking one.
 
Agree with everything stated so far - this is really an (thankfully) intelligent discussion.

"Zoos" are a highly varied group - some get better and some not so much. (Just as one city's sports team is great for a few years and then another city's is better). Hard to generalize on all American zoos.

San Diego gets criticized more severely, which is perhaps unfair, because they are viewed as the gold standard. (This is partly their own doing by naming themselves The World Famous San Diego Zoo). Just as car fans would be more critical of the features in a new Porsche than they would be in a new Hyundai.

ZooChat members (and I am one of the biggest offenders) are not normal. We are so obsessed with zoos that we have expectations that are often unrealistic. We also want to see rare animals that the average visitor could not care less about.

If we do try to generalize, the one trend I think I am seeing (that I personally do not like) is an emphasis on large animals and the removal of small animals. Is this a trend others are seeing or am I mistaken?
 
More of a trend to rock star exhibits for rock star animals. That is why I think the next evolution/trend in zoos will be biogeographical that once all these rock star exhibits are built for Elephants, Polar bears, etc then when it comes time to build new exhibits it will be easier to build smaller exhibits that match the big exhibits. For instance Birmingham started Trails as a Bull elephant herd, then the next phase was giraffes under trees that borders it, then small african bird aviaries built on the deck with the giraffe feeding. Down the road new hoofstock will be added as well. I could see the same thing where these new polar bear exhibits will be joined by arctic foxes and other smaller animals from the same habitat.
 
I think overall quality is still increasing at a pretty high rate. Although one could blame the zoos that have lots of money, that they build their state-of-the-art exhibits in a to visitor-focussed way, where the animals sometimes come second (Hannover, Omaha spring to mind).

But it is not new that enclosures are constructed for animals, that are by far worse than much older ones for the same species, that has always happened. Although nowadays it is much more easy to exchange information, so maybe it could be avoided a bit more often.

A negative trend is however visible in the number of species displayed, one may argue if this is a problem, but I personally think it is a shame when looking to small mammals & birds. I think that is important if more zoos would follow the principle of showing a represantative sample of (at least the vertrebrate) diversity. But meerkats are probably considered more important.

I think that there is also a trend that more an more zoodirectors have a more economic background instead of an zoological than in the past. But with the current situation I doubt whether that is a bad thing overall, although it might be bad for the wombats & kowaris ;).
 
I think part of the criticism of zoos is the phasing out of more unusual species and moving toward similar species in zoos across the board. Zoos' unusual and unique species are being phased out and the flagship species like elephants, lions, or tigers being given more priority. From what I've read, the case in point seems to be the San Diego Zoo. Horn and Hoof Mesa disappeared to make room for Elephant Odyssey. People also are critical of attractions such as zip lines (again something the San Diego Zoo has done).

My theories anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top