I’ve noticed that many zoos have been taking a disappointing drop in quality lately, with many deciding to pour huge sums of money into cheap and interesting diversions such as animatronic dinosaurs, Chinese lantern displays, and heavily themed play areas instead of doing anything for the betterment of their animal residents, or even trying to introduce new species. Disney’s Animal Kingdom and Sea World are great examples of this, as both have phased out loads of species while introducing more shows, holiday events, private parties, and rides. Sad to see that many zoos just don’t seem to care anymore.
I think using this as a way to claim zoos "just don't seem to care anymore" is excessive, and using the two theme parks as your examples strengthens a generalization about zoos overall considering these are the two institutions most likely to invest in non-zoo types of attractions. There are not "huge sums of money" required for animatronic dinosaurs, playgrounds and Chinese lantern displays; in fact, some zoos seem to be licensing animatronic dinosaur displays from outside companies and are not actually paying for construction costs. Many of them do not have the kinds of daily maintenance costs that are needed to care for live animals which will need food, medicine, training and may break things, and dinosaurs and lantern festivals can bring in additional revenue that normal parts of the collection do not feature.
For some contrast, Brookfield Zoo is spending over $66 million on Tropical Forests, which includes multiple outdoor ape exhibits and monkey habitats. Saint Louis' Destination Discovery children's zoo will cost $40 million. Omaha spent $73 million on African Grasslands which includes a world-class exhibit for elephants. These are huge investments, well worth it, but nonetheless huge, and it's well-known Omaha's $73 million still did not match up to the entirety of their original concept for the exhibit and doesn't account for inflation like what is affecting Tropical Forests, which is much more modest in concept. Even exhibits for bears and tigers can cost tens to twenty million dollars. Every one of these animal exhibits requires daily maintenance so the new costs are not only the process of building an exhibit but keeping it running smoothly. I also often keep in mind the world-famous Bronx Zoo has taken a decade and a half to reopen exhibits closed during the budget crisis; surely the costs must be quite high for such a successful zoo to take so long on that.
So I would say the chances are extremely high that running animatronic dinosaurs and so forth, or building playgrounds, despite distaste for these practices on Zoochat, is actually far less expensive than constructing a new exhibit for animals and keeping it running on an ongoing basis, and therefore probably not eating into the budget for animal exhibits. Building a roller coaster at SeaWorld or Disney's Animal Kingdom is a different story but that is in no way representative of the majority of zoos and not worthy of a generalization so sweeping; not to mention SeaWorld is in a very, very bad position right now and I find it completely understandable why they are reluctant to invest in animal attractions right now. To use that to say all facilities "don't seem to care" is very sad to me.
Shifting away from displaying larger animals in AZA zoos would be a significant change.
There has been a trend, as identified in 3A of the AZA Trends 2023 Report, for habitats to increase in size. This has been in development for a while, and I expect it to continue. There are some notable examples of where that trend has resulted in zoos reducing their species of large animals. For example, the Oregon Zoo stopped displaying river hippos to give more space to their black rhinos
I think this is an extremely significant point. As long as the trend for increasing habitat sizes continues, and by all means it looks like it will, then many zoos will continue to be outdated and many more will continue to be forced to make difficult choices. So many of our US zoos are landlocked and indefinite expansion is impossible. We have seen many zoos collapse outdated big cat, bear and pachyderm exhibits to focus on one or two choice species over the last two or three decades and some facilities are still now just beginning to catch up to these standards that many of us would consider below the bare minimum for today. A lot of these changes that we have seen have been positive, but I am sometimes concerned about the potential of standards rising in the future becoming higher than too many zoos can meet. Can the rate of progression increase in the future if standards increase and lead into a new golden age of high quality exhibits, or will we repeat our current cycle at a slower rate to a much more diminished return with new cynicism?
Your post draws attention to a lot of my overall concerns about US zoos right now very well.
The AZA populations of many smaller species of animals are much more threatened than their larger counterparts. Of course there are some exceptions. On Zoochat there is often discussion about the prevalence of meerkats, red pandas, Asian small clawed otters, ring tailed lemurs, black and white ruffed lemurs, sloths, red-necked wallabies, and perhaps a few more that I'm forgetting. That's seven species of small mammals. All seven species of "big cat" (all 5 Panthera species, cougars, and cheetahs) are well represented in AZA zoos. Are there any small cat species that are as abundant and secure in AZA as any one of those "big cats"? The great apes kept in AZA facilities seem to have stable populations, although more bonobo holders would be helpful. Compare that to all the species of monkeys lost or with declining populations. Lion-tailed macaques are perhaps the most famous of the disappearing AZA monkeys. The Oregon Zoo is down to displaying just one species of monkey.
Returning to the trend of larger habitat sizes, AZA populations of many smaller animals have been disproportionality negatively impacted. I worry much more for the future of many smaller species of animals in AZA zoos than for their larger counterparts.
There was a period where I tried to be vocal about this as a potential issue and it was misunderstood or discussion drifted to other aspects of the problem. I have expressed concern at times the removal of small mammal buildings and dedicated such exhibits has lead to a lot of facilities not keeping small mammals in their collections any longer outside the suspects quoted, and that they did not seem as often integrated in biogeographic complexes at the level that small mammal-dedicated buildings previously did. I always recall someone responding by implying I had some interest in "obscure rodents" which couldn't be farther from the truth; a lot of these are species I ignored as a child and feel some regret for not taking more interest in.
I agree with the point about cats and I would also compare primates and antelope; these are all species-rich groups where the popularity of larger forms that demand specialized care can have an adverse effect on smaller forms, some of whom benefited more in taxonomic exhibits concerned about showcasing group diversity (or species count) than modern bio-geographic complexes where variety is not only preferred but really a necessity of design. Asia is rich in cats, Africa is rich in antelope, both are rich in primates, but a modern complex will probably not want more than a few of these groups, presumably the more popular ones, or risk feeling repetitious or detracting from an intended message. At the same time, smaller zoos could benefit a lot from switching to smaller forms and potentially exhibiting more total species than by focusing on larger cousins, though understandably some may view the larger forms are bigger draws.
It might be wise to see some more zoos take the kind of route that Lincoln Park Zoo took with African Journey -- although the subsequent elephant loss was somewhat unrelated and not part of an immediate phase-out, the pivot away from the large mammal focus in the building really enabled a lot of new reptile, bird and small mammal species to move in, even a few insects, and for the zoo ultimately gained a lot more species than it lost in the process, rather than if the entire building had been transformed into winter holding for a single costly species. Sometimes instead of investing a lot of land into megafauna you could probably do just as well with a lot of small species. These choices should obviously be strategic and thoughtful.
I think Birmingham Wildlife Conservation Park in the UK would be a great collection model for future zoos looking to be less focused on "larger animals" here actually. It has a very impressive small mammal collection for such a small zoo by land area (6.5 acres) with tons of small mammals -- lynx, ocelot, New World monkeys, lemurs, sloths, meerkats, otters, loris, red panda, bush dog, and such -- as well as a few major birds and reptiles and still manages a few larger animals like sitatunga, rhea and Komodo dragon. There are no expensive mega-buildings though there are small indoor viewing areas for a number of species. It's very light on megafauna but a number of the small species are attractive and active and so there is plenty of interest, and given the small size of the facility, a larger one could still start with such a collection and potentially expand outward into larger forms later on.
A lot of these are the questions animating me recently about this hobby.
