AZA to keep "fewer large animals"?

[BearMinimum]

Document can be found here, under "Zoo and Aquarium Design": Annual Reports

Section 3B says: "Species under our care will change, [...] The number and profile of species
and individuals of each species will change with fewer elephants, cetaceans, great apes,
and other large animals."

Apparently this is due to trends of the younger generation of visitors wanting to see less large animals in captivity.

I... Don't like how this sounds. Does anyone know what they actually mean by this, and what it means for the continuation of these species in captivity? Are they hoping to maintain smaller populations, keep them in fewer facilities, both? Surely they don't plan to phase them out altogether?

 

[Aardwolf]

I don't think this is anything different from what we're already seeing, for example in the number of elephant exhibits which are repurposed for rhinos. There's so many zoos that you go to and you see an exhibit, and then someone who is familiar with the history of that zoos tells you that it used to be an exhibit for a larger species (an old bear grotto that now has red pandas, for example).

There are still plenty of zoos that are committed to having certain large species, such as elephants and apes, but there are still facilities that are probably going to phase those species out, and that's ok. If they don't have the resources to build suitable habitats for those species, it's ok to take those spaces and see what does work there. As far as population sizes go, I think we're seeing a transition towards fewer holders but larger populations within holders. It used to be that ever zoo had a pair of gorillas, for example. Now, we'll see fewer zoos with gorillas, but the zoos with gorillas will have larger troops, maybe multiple troops - and some of those older gorilla exhibits that weren't ideal for the species will have other primates.

 

[Ebirah766]

I don't think this is anything different from what we're already seeing, for example in the number of elephant exhibits which are repurposed for rhinos. There's so many zoos that you go to and you see an exhibit, and then someone who is familiar with the history of that zoos tells you that it used to be an exhibit for a larger species (an old bear grotto that now has red pandas, for example).

There are still plenty of zoos that are committed to having certain large species, such as elephants and apes, but there are still facilities that are probably going to phase those species out, and that's ok. If they don't have the resources to build suitable habitats for those species, it's ok to take those spaces and see what does work there. As far as population sizes go, I think we're seeing a transition towards fewer holders but larger populations within holders. It used to be that ever zoo had a pair of gorillas, for example. Now, we'll see fewer zoos with gorillas, but the zoos with gorillas will have larger troops, maybe multiple troops - and some of those older gorilla exhibits that weren't ideal for the species will have other primates.

Exactly. The next 10 years we're going to see a concentration of megafauna into a few large zoos that can adequately care for them.

 

[Aardwolf]

Exactly. The next 10 years we're going to see a concentration of megafauna into a few large zoos that can adequately care for them.

Or a diversification of holdings. Maybe right now Zoo A, B, and C each have a mediocre elephant, ape, and bear exhibit. In the future, Zoo A might have a really good elephant exhibit, Zoo B a really good ape exhibit, and Zoo C a really good bear one

 

[BearMinimum]

I don't think this is anything different from what we're already seeing, for example in the number of elephant exhibits which are repurposed for rhinos. There's so many zoos that you go to and you see an exhibit, and then someone who is familiar with the history of that zoos tells you that it used to be an exhibit for a larger species (an old bear grotto that now has red pandas, for example).

There are still plenty of zoos that are committed to having certain large species, such as elephants and apes, but there are still facilities that are probably going to phase those species out, and that's ok. If they don't have the resources to build suitable habitats for those species, it's ok to take those spaces and see what does work there. As far as population sizes go, I think we're seeing a transition towards fewer holders but larger populations within holders. It used to be that ever zoo had a pair of gorillas, for example. Now, we'll see fewer zoos with gorillas, but the zoos with gorillas will have larger troops, maybe multiple troops - and some of those older gorilla exhibits that weren't ideal for the species will have other primates.

Thank you for the clarification, I am entirely on board with this.

 

[BearMinimum]

Exactly. The next 10 years we're going to see a concentration of megafauna into a few large zoos that can adequately care for them.

This is what I figured, but I wasn't sure (and frankly still am not) exactly what the extent of it might be. How many is "a few", and what classifies as "large"? There are plenty of zoos who have no business keeping these animals and I'm in full support of them changing out their collections. At the same time, I hope they don't entirely prevent smaller yet capable zoos from displaying any of the more advanced species

 

[DavidBrown]

Section 3B says: "Species under our care will change, [...] The number and profile of species
and individuals of each species will change with fewer elephants, cetaceans, great apes,
and other large animals."

As others have noted, it sounds like this is just a description of reality. Cetaceans will likely be mostly absent from zoos and aquariums in the decades ahead. Elephants have already disappeared from many zoos, and that trend will continue until there are just a few zoos with first class elephant facilities and lots of room for them (although even that won't stop them from disappearing from some zoos - see Oakland Zoo and likely LA Zoo for recent examples). The ape comment is a bit puzzling...gorilla exhibits seem to be increasing, not decreasing in American zoos. Maybe chimp and orang exhibits are shutting down in zoos that don't have the capacity to improve them?

Giraffe and rhino spaces seem to be expanding in number.

 

[dillotest0]

I will say...
With regards to most 'major animals' in this survey I found the choices a bit odd... surely orcas, belugas, dolphins and sharks are more aquarium animals than anything? Though from what I recall many US zoos have a marine aquarium as well, so maybe it's just my bias

I am on-board with the idea that elephants, gorillas, or lions may not be so common fixtures into the future. This is a reality that zooscape is slowly moving towards and has been for some time. But with bears I have some more reservation. Particularly because sun bears and moon bears are heavily persecuted in their native countries and need better conservation measures. Though saying that I think for those two the AZA ark has sailed anyways.
But what I find interesting is the lack of all other animals found in captivity - am I to just assume that there's little reservation held towards giraffes, vultures, orangutans, otters etc held under the AZA? Most major zoos in the US have a giraffe and there isn't quite the media panic surrounding them as with other large animals.
I recall yearning when I was younger a future where we would as a species move beyond what was candy for our eyes; lions, elephants and company; and put in the spotlight what wasn't before. Zoos stocked with angwantibos, binturongs, and cacomistles. I do wonder if less large-mammal centrism would facilitate this future or not. Though given the giraffe effect maybe not.

But what did dishearten me was that which came two sections after. Non-animal attractions will continue to be added to facilities. Attractions such as rides, live entertainment, immersive playgrounds, and video games will be added to appeal to younger generations.
What I like about visiting zoos in Europe and the UK oftentimes is the open space which they provide, the escape from humanity which they allow, and that I can oftentimes see good conservationwork going on. I feel this change would not be beneficial to a zoo's reputation as a place where science and zoology stuff happens. It would put a zoo in the league of any other attraction. Dare I say it reeks of the times when a zoo would often be a sideshow attraction to a funfair; you have the zoo, merry-go-round, bearded lady. But the logic is one I can see. When attractions are the competition, you make yourself as one of them.

 

[Chlidonias]

With regards to most 'major animals' in this survey I found the choices a bit odd... surely orcas, belugas, dolphins and sharks are more aquarium animals than anything? Though from what I recall many US zoos have a marine aquarium as well, so maybe it's just my bias

AZA is the Association of Zoos & Aquariums.

 

[birdsandbats]

I will say...
With regards to most 'major animals' in this survey I found the choices a bit odd... surely orcas, belugas, dolphins and sharks are more aquarium animals than anything? Though from what I recall many US zoos have a marine aquarium as well, so maybe it's just my bias

The AZA is the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, what makes you think aquariums were excluded?

EDIT: cross-post

 

[BearMinimum]

As others have noted, it sounds like this is just a description of reality. Cetaceans will likely be mostly absent from zoos and aquariums in the decades ahead. Elephants have already disappeared from many zoos, and that trend will continue until there are just a few zoos with first class elephant facilities and lots of room for them (although even that won't stop them from disappearing from some zoos - see Oakland Zoo and likely LA Zoo for recent examples). The ape comment is a bit puzzling...gorilla exhibits seem to be increasing, not decreasing in American zoos. Maybe chimp and orang exhibits are shutting down in zoos that don't have the capacity to improve them?

Giraffe and rhino spaces seem to be expanding in number.

Cetaceans and elephants for sure don't surprise me unfortunately. Though disappointing this is fully understandable to me. I was mostly confused by the ambiguity of "large animals" for the reasons you mention here, same confusion on the great apes, although I can maybe see that applying to chimps or bonobos (how common even are these in AZA zoos)?

 

[BearMinimum]

I recall yearning when I was younger a future where we would as a species move beyond what was candy for our eyes; lions, elephants and company; and put in the spotlight what wasn't before. Zoos stocked with angwantibos, binturongs, and cacomistles. I do wonder if less large-mammal centrism would facilitate this future or not. Though given the giraffe effect maybe not.

But what did dishearten me was that which came two sections after. Non-animal attractions will continue to be added to facilities. Attractions such as rides, live entertainment, immersive playgrounds, and video games will be added to appeal to younger generations.
What I like about visiting zoos in Europe and the UK oftentimes is the open space which they provide, the escape from humanity which they allow, and that I can oftentimes see good conservationwork going on. I feel this change would not be beneficial to a zoo's reputation as a place where science and zoology stuff happens. It would put a zoo in the league of any other attraction. Dare I say it reeks of the times when a zoo would often be a sideshow attraction to a funfair; you have the zoo, merry-go-round, bearded lady. But the logic is one I can see. When attractions are the competition, you make yourself as one of them.

Perhaps this is your vision, and that's fine, but the general public expects to see iconic species. We surely can't expect to change that vision in the next 10 years. Ultimately it's the dollars of the general public that keep these facilities operating at the level they're able to. If you have two zoos in a major city, one whose star attraction is an elephant, gorilla, or lion, and one whose star attraction is a binturong. Which do you think is going to be more popular with residents of the city? Which is going to attract families from neighboring towns?

The same can be said of non-animal attractions. I understand your frustration but this is personally something I take no issue with. If it takes non-animal attractions to bring them extra revenue for animal care then so be it, not everyone is generous enough to donate. Busch Gardens and SeaWorld have awesome advantages here because rollercoaster enthusiasts travel from around the world for their rides. They have a whole other audience of people who would otherwise probably never bother to visit. More revenue, more opportunity for educational outreach, it's a good thing if you ask me. But I digress.

To get back on topic and conclude, small animals are not the only ones with conservation value, and while I support stronger regulations on the more sensitive species, I think doing away with them altogether is a stupid idea, especially if the only goal is to avoid the ire of ARAs.

 

[dillotest0]

Perhaps this is your vision, and that's fine, but the general public expects to see iconic species. We surely can't expect to change that vision in the next 10 years. Ultimately it's the dollars of the general public that keep these facilities operating at the level they're able to. If you have two zoos in a major city, one whose star attraction is an elephant, gorilla, or lion, and one whose star attraction is a binturong. Which do you think is going to be more popular with residents of the city? Which is going to attract families from neighboring towns?

The same can be said of non-animal attractions. I understand your frustration but this is personally something I take no issue with. If it takes non-animal attractions to bring them extra revenue for animal care then so be it, not everyone is generous enough to donate. Busch Gardens and SeaWorld have awesome advantages here because rollercoaster enthusiasts travel from around the world for their rides. They have a whole other audience of people who would otherwise probably never bother to visit. More revenue, more opportunity for educational outreach, it's a good thing if you ask me. But I digress.

To get back on topic and conclude, small animals are not the only ones with conservation value, and while I support stronger regulations on the more sensitive species, I think doing away with them altogether is a stupid idea, especially if the only goal is to avoid the ire of ARAs.

This is a truth.
It was just hypothetical.

 

[Chlidonias]

I... Don't like how this sounds. Does anyone know what they actually mean by this, and what it means for the continuation of these species in captivity? Are they hoping to maintain smaller populations, keep them in fewer facilities, both? Surely they don't plan to phase them out altogether?

Keep in mind this is a "trends" document. It isn't "this is what we are definitely planning on doing", it is just "this is the direction that current trends are leading towards". There is some connection between those two things, but they aren't synonymous.

Cetaceans and elephants for sure don't surprise me unfortunately. Though disappointing this is fully understandable to me. I was mostly confused by the ambiguity of "large animals" for the reasons you mention here, same confusion on the great apes, although I can maybe see that applying to chimps or bonobos?

That section seems to be based largely or entirely on a survey which isn't linked or specifically named. Without being able to see the actual questions or responses it is difficult to say anything about it.

Did the survey only include specific large animals, or is this section simply picking out that part? Did it ask people to choose their own species or did it provide a list to select from? What were the answer options - how much detail was there? How many people were surveyed? Where were they surveyed? Was the age ratio of those surveyed representative (the section keeps mentioning younger people - was the survey only aimed at them)? Did responses get skewed by a local zoo or city (i.e. if a lot of people surveyed were visitors to zoo X and that zoo had a terrible penguin exhibit), or by a specific media event (e.g. a viral story about a sad hippo automatically makes a lot of people simply choose "hippo in zoo bad")?

There are so many variables that the statistics are not much use without the background.

 

[BearMinimum]

Keep in mind this is a "trends" document. It isn't "this is what we are definitely planning on doing", it is just "this is the direction that current trends are leading towards". There is some connection between those two things, but they aren't synonymous.


That section seems to be based largely or entirely on a survey which isn't linked or specifically named. Without being able to see the actual questions or responses it is difficult to say anything about it.

Did the survey only include specific large animals, or is this section simply picking out that part? Did it ask people to choose their own species or did it provide a list to select from? What were the answer options - how much detail was there? How many people were surveyed? Where were they surveyed? Was the age ratio of those surveyed representative (the section keeps mentioning younger people - was the survey only aimed at them)? Did responses get skewed by a local zoo or city (i.e. if a lot of people surveyed were visitors to zoo X and that zoo had a terrible penguin exhibit), or by a specific media event (e.g. a viral story about a sad hippo automatically makes a lot of people simply choose "hippo in zoo bad")?

There are so many variables that the statistics are not much use without the background.

I don't know if these are rhetorical questions or if you're actually asking me, but either way I don't know the background and that's precisely part of my concern with this proposal. I would worry about the precedent it could set if this did actually fully come to fruition.

That said, I recognize how preliminary this framework is, and of course we also know that even a fully established, concrete plan doesn't always follow through. So I know it's not doomsday. An interesting publication nonetheless, especially with some of the vague wording. Definitely curious about the source/s of the data used here but I don't know if they made it public.

 

[Coelacanth18]

If you have two zoos in a major city, one whose star attraction is an elephant, gorilla, or lion, and one whose star attraction is a binturong. Which do you think is going to be more popular with residents of the city? Which is going to attract families from neighboring towns?

That's kind of an "apples to oranges comparison" though. Generally, smaller zoos with smaller animals need less revenue to operate than larger zoos with larger animals; therefore a smaller zoo getting fewer visitors is perfectly fine and expected, even within the same metro area.

 

[BearMinimum]

That's kind of an "apples to oranges comparison" though. Generally, smaller zoos with smaller animals need less revenue to operate than larger zoos with larger animals; therefore a smaller zoo getting fewer visitors is perfectly fine and expected, even within the same metro area.

True, but at the same time, even smaller facilities with at least one big-ticket animal tend to be more popular than those who don't, in my personal experience. And that species usually ends up being the facility's crown jewel, even if it's a common one in AZA zoos.

A better example might simply be to look at a single zoo and consider which species draw the greatest crowds. The iconic species will pretty much as a rule have higher crowd concentrations than rarer ones. For example, Zoo Atlanta's tiger exhibit is right next to both the clouded leopard and binturongs, and sadly the binturongs draw little to no attention due to their proximity to the tiger. Even the clouded leopard gets overlooked unless she's especially active, while the sleeping tiger commands constant viewership.

Indeed, I don't at all think the lesser-known species are of any less importance in a collection — often it's the opposite. But people just aren't impressed by them in the same way as the iconic lions, tigers, rhinos, giraffes, bears. So I think it's important to keep those big-ticket animals in the lineup if you can afford to do so. Of course I don't know if any of these animals are even included in the "large animals" AZA mentions, so this is all purely hypothetical.

 

[Aardwolf]

Large animals are undoubtedly powerful draws, but on the flip side, there can be an advantages to having several smaller species instead. It doesn't put all of your eggs in one basket in terms of the visitor experience. If you have a large plot of land set aside for a tiger exhibit, and the tigers are sleeping out of view for much of the day, visitors will not see anything. If you instead use that land for four or five smaller animals - otter, lemur, meerkat, red panda, porcupine, let's say - visitors are more likely to see someone being active and engaging. I say this as someone who works at a zoo with a handful of exhibits, mostly for larger ABC animals and relatively few smaller animals - and it only takes one or two species to be inactive or off-exhibit for the day for the zoo to suddenly feel pretty empty, and for visitors to start complaining that there's nothing to see

 

[BearMinimum]

Large animals are undoubtedly powerful draws, but on the flip side, there can be an advantages to having several smaller species instead. It doesn't put all of your eggs in one basket in terms of the visitor experience. If you have a large plot of land set aside for a tiger exhibit, and the tigers are sleeping out of view for much of the day, visitors will not see anything. If you instead use that land for four or five smaller animals - otter, lemur, meerkat, red panda, porcupine, let's say - visitors are more likely to see someone being active and engaging. I say this as someone who works at a zoo with a handful of exhibits, mostly for larger ABC animals and relatively few smaller animals - and it only takes one or two species to be inactive or off-exhibit for the day for the zoo to suddenly feel pretty empty, and for visitors to start complaining that there's nothing to see

I completely agree with this. Too many large animals in a collection are of course also more expensive to maintain than it may be worth. It's a bell curve, needs to be balanced. The species you listed are examples of small animals which are iconic enough to be reasonable replacements. I don't perfectly remember Nashville Zoo's entire collection but if I recall, theirs is kind of like this. A couple large mammals and mostly smaller ones, though not that many to begin with.

I hope it doesn't come off like I'm saying zoos need to be loaded front to back with large mammals, because I definitely don't believe that's the case.

 

[filovirus]

But what did dishearten me was that which came two sections after. Non-animal attractions will continue to be added to facilities. Attractions such as rides, live entertainment, immersive playgrounds, and video games will be added to appeal to younger generations.

I find this frustrating as well.

I've spoken in the past on here about my frustration with the Minnesota Zoo's apparent disinterest in putting funding towards improving and expanding their animal exhibition. The biggest expansion the zoo has done in recent years is their Treetop Trail. Despite following the same naming convention as two highlights of the zoo- the Minnesota Trail and Tropics Trail- the Treetop Trail is a nature walk/hiking path, with animal observation being secondary. It's a repurposed monorail track.

Don't get me wrong- I'm glad they did something with it. The defunct track was a bit unsightly, a reminder of yet another neat thing the zoo used to have. And I absolutely agree with the sentiment that nature- that is, natural fauna- is a vitally important component of conservation. But the master plan they're operating on right now is really really heavily focused on the Treetop Trail, with.... well, with no plans for animal-related expansion.

It's lame! I don't like it! Maybe it's because I'm generally a very avid indoorswoman, but I go to a zoo for animals. Minnesota is rich with hiking trails and nature walks and parks and natural landscape to explore- I go to the zoo to see animals!

A LOT of what Minnesota Zoo has done in recent years is just not in the animal realm. I feel like 90% of the time when I see them come up in my social media feeds, it's about some concert or late-night thing they're hosting, or a treetop trail advert, or a seasonal non-animal thing (like a carved pumpkin exhibition or animatronic dinos). It's boring. It's not what I'm there for. Especially when a lot of their existing "entertainment" or other non-animal venues are severely lacking. You haven't been able to pet goats since 2020. The overwhelming majority of food stands don't operate outside of peak weekend hours, and the food that is there has dropped significantly in quality over the last few years. The only animal expansion we've really had, if you can call it that, is a seasonal llama trek experience where you can walk among some llamas (and pay extra to feed them). Even that has downsized- there's a big spot for guinea pigs but on every occasion I visited last summer, none were there.

I think there's some place in zoos for edutainment. Interactive installations and stuff like that, for younger guests. I don't even mind immersive playgrounds- that's fine. But when it's at the expense of animal exhibition, I really really hate it.

Como Zoo does it fairly well IMO. They have a pretty solid zoo and a beautiful conservatory, but all of their entertainment-type stuff is across the street in the zoo-themed Como Town. The only real overlap is a big zipline that offers you a good view of the zoo from the sky.

idk. Minnesota Zoo is my home zoo and so it has a special place in my heart, but in post-COVID years it has brought me a lot of frustration. stop spending money on concerts and events and get a permanent Africa exhibit on the table.