DCzootripper
Well-Known Member
OK, you are a tourist going to america and are obsessed with zoos, but You can only go to one state. What state do you choose, what zoos do you go too, I am excited to see the results of this thread!
Best state to visit for Zoos for a tourist in the US
- Thread starter DCzootripper
- Start date
I’d probably choose Texas.
Between the metropolitan areas of San Antonio, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Houston all in one; you could get a lot out of their respective facilities with relative proximity of each other.
Between the metropolitan areas of San Antonio, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Houston all in one; you could get a lot out of their respective facilities with relative proximity of each other.
Originally from Houston, I can agree. There are lots of zoos and wildlife parks. Houston Zoo, Dallas Zoo, Fort Worth Zoo, San Antonio Zoo, Cameron Park Zoo, Natural Bridge Wildlife Park, Texas State Aquarium, Dallas World Aquarium, Austin Zoo, Houston Downtown Aquarium, Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo and several Safari Parks.
SeaOtterHQ
Well-Known Member
If distance required to travel is not an issue, then California seems like a no-brainer:
- San Diego Zoo
- San Diego Zoo Safari Park
- Monterey Bay Aquarium
- The Living Desert Zoo
- California Academy of Sciences
- Aquarium of the Pacific
- Oakland Zoo
- Los Angeles Zoo
- Birch Aquarium
Between the DFW facilities + Reptilandia, Texas is probably the best state for herps, but the herp collections at San Diego and Los Angeles are impressive in their own right. California probably wins in every other field.
- San Diego Zoo
- San Diego Zoo Safari Park
- Monterey Bay Aquarium
- The Living Desert Zoo
- California Academy of Sciences
- Aquarium of the Pacific
- Oakland Zoo
- Los Angeles Zoo
- Birch Aquarium
Between the DFW facilities + Reptilandia, Texas is probably the best state for herps, but the herp collections at San Diego and Los Angeles are impressive in their own right. California probably wins in every other field.
Texas, California, or Florida are definitely the top three in the country.
Unless you have specific animals you want to see that are only in one state, I would honestly decide based on what you would like to do/see non-zoo instead.
That said, Texas probably has the most good facilities all concentrated "together" (and by that I mean all within 4 hours of each other).
Unless you have specific animals you want to see that are only in one state, I would honestly decide based on what you would like to do/see non-zoo instead.
That said, Texas probably has the most good facilities all concentrated "together" (and by that I mean all within 4 hours of each other).
If you're traveling around the state, the above suggestions work fine, although it feels remiss not to mention that the Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo in Nebraska is the best in the nation, and the Lee Simmons Safari Park may be of higher interest to a non-American interested in viewing native wildlife, so I would recommend heading there.
I’d go with Texas. But considering the size of the state (about the size of France…although the great zoos are clustered in a smaller area) you could compare Texas to a regional area…like maybe the Tri-State (New York, northern New Jersey and south-west Connecticut) along with the smallish zoos of greater New England as a nice alternative.
Still…Texas probably has the greatest assemblage of quality Zoos. Ohio might come close…but still I think I would go with Texas.
Still…Texas probably has the greatest assemblage of quality Zoos. Ohio might come close…but still I think I would go with Texas.
Kalaw
Well-Known Member
I've never been to the United States, but if I had to pick one state to visit as a tourist for zoos (so ignoring wildlife and cities of interest), Texas wouldn't be close to my pick in spite of its rich overall abundance of zoos, because it doesn't have any one zoo which can really claim to be in a global top ten list. Though I'd have to go there to be sure, I'd be stunned if Dallas or Houston breach my current top five of European collections (which is Chester, Beauval, Burgers', Zürich and Prague). This may just be me, but I'd rather visit one single 'S-tier' zoo in the calibre of the five I just named than ten or more 'A-tier' zoos. For that reason, I'd take California, New York, Nebraska or Missouri over Texas, and out of those, California obviously has more overall of interest: one of the most ground-breaking aquaria in the world, something that is entirely possible to replicate in Europe with the Living Desert, the SDZSP, a SeaWorld which again has no proper European answer, and some other decent zoos like LA and Oakland; all of that on top of San Diego, of course.
Of course my verdict doesn't mean much as I have no first-hand experience of any of these zoos, but for me, if I were planning a US holiday purely for the purpose of seeing zoos, Texas wouldn't come close to California. I'd be interested to hear from those who have more experience than me: is there any Texas zoo that would make a global top ten, even twenty?
Of course my verdict doesn't mean much as I have no first-hand experience of any of these zoos, but for me, if I were planning a US holiday purely for the purpose of seeing zoos, Texas wouldn't come close to California. I'd be interested to hear from those who have more experience than me: is there any Texas zoo that would make a global top ten, even twenty?
While Henry Doory is truly one of the best in the nation, if I was visiting the US from outside the country for zoos, I would certainly not pick for Nebraska, which would essentially be for a single zoo.
I think Texas and California would be by far the best options here, although noting that the travel distance between the notable collections in these states are quite significant. If this was a shorter duration trip and travel time needed to be minimized, I would probably pick either New York, Ohio or Illinois.
I could understand New York or Ohio, but Illinois is a terrible choice. i would be embarassed for a European to have to see Brookfield and I love Lincoln Park but ZooChat always seems very unimpressed with it.
Omaha is actually a good facility and I mentioned Simmons Safari Park so "only one zoo" is completely false.
Plus I didn't see a need to repeat other posters and wanted to include another option.
SeaOtterHQ
Well-Known Member
If we're taking distance into account and not limiting ourselves to one state, then I would point out that getting from NYC to Baltimore or DC takes roughly the same amount of time as getting from Houston to Dallas or Fort Worth. Traveling along the Acela corridor allows you to access:
NYC:
Bronx Zoo
Central Park Zoo
New York Aquarium
Queens Zoo
Prospect Park Zoo
Staten Island Zoo (admittedly the most skippable zoo here, but it has a few species the others don't)
Philadelphia:
Philadelphia Zoo
Baltimore:
National Aquarium in Baltimore
Zoo Maryland
DC:
Smithsonian Zoo
That's an incredible collection of zoos, not to mention all the non-zoo attractions these cities have to offer. I would also add that Acela is one of the few parts of America with decent public transportation, which can matter a lot for a tourist.
You vastly underrate your local collections. I hear constant talk about Lincoln Park, and Brookfield is an excellent, if somewhat flawed, zoo. The triad of Brookfield, Lincoln Park and Shedd together easily make up one of the best combinations of zoos in the US.
I have no hate on Lee Simmons, but it is not a zoo worth prioritizing for an international visitor. I find it bizarre you think Lee Simmons is worth a visit but that the Chicago collections aren't. Stop being so tough on your local zoos, they're amazing.
Last edited:
Kalaw
Well-Known Member
The way that people either hugely overrate or underrate their local zoos always interests me. It makes sense that as we get familiar with a place, we’d hold it to a higher standard, thus becoming more critical (underrating). And then in other instances, nostalgia bias and an exaggerated excitement when something new happens as we’ll get to see it more often makes us treat the place as better than it is (overrating). For the longest time, with London, I was always in the former camp, but now I’m firmly in the latter!
Aardwolf
Well-Known Member
Another factor to consider, depending on your preference - when I visit a zoo abroad, I’m always most excited to use it as an opportunity to see species that I can’t see in US zoos - which usually means the native species of that county. There are many US-native species which are not present (either at all or in any appreciable numbers) in zoos in other countries, so prioritizing a facility with a collection that includes a lot of native rarities may be of interest, as opposed to comparing a US lion exhibit to a lion exhibit in your home country.
I made a very genuine mistake in not including the Shedd - that was dim of me. That is a world-class institution and my focus narrowed too much on zoos to give it the consideration it deserves. That's a my bad. It's absolutely worth a visit for anyone, unless they detest cetacean keeping.
I love my local collections but I try harder and harder not to let that love blind me. I love Lincoln Park. I don't feel like anybody non-local does. Wherever you see constant talk of it, I am not there. I love Brookfield and desperately want good things for it more than I can put into words, but that just doesn't mean I would be comfortable recommending it to an international visitor. I see many North American zoochatters continue to remember it for the same handful of blights I've argued back and forth over in the past and at this stage I'd rather wait until the zoo's master plan progresses than recommend it in it's current state.
I brought up Lee Simmons as a compliment to visiting Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo and explicitly framed a reason as that it "may be of higher interest to a non-American interested in viewing native wildlife" and you then claimed a visit to Nebraska "would essentially be for a single zoo" which is what I was pushing back against. The implication was not that Lee Simmons alone would be worthwhile without visiting other institutions and superior alone to other institutions.
Aardwolf
Well-Known Member
I would second the SoCal itinerary suggested by @SeaOtterHQ - not only are those excellent facilities, reasonably close by, but they’re excellent *different* facilities - a safari park, aquariums, conventional zoos, an unusually specialist zoo, and, if you add SeaWorld, a marine park for a zoological experience unlike what you’d find in many parts of the world. A great cross-section of wildlife facilities, including one of the most iconic zoos in the world.
Last edited:
It's simply got to be either California or Texas. I've toured 62 zoos in the former and 45 in the latter and the quantity and quality on display in those two U.S. states is impressive. Of course, there's a whole series of duds in each state as well and some lower tier zoos and aquariums that would likely never see the light of day in countries such as Germany or the Netherlands.
California has the three enormous San Diego parks (zoo, safari park, SeaWorld), Living Desert (a huge favourite of mine), Oakland, Fresno Chaffee, Los Angeles, and around 30 aquariums including famous ones like California Academy of Sciences (containing Steinhart Aquarium), Birch Aquarium, Aquarium of the Pacific and Monterey Bay Aquarium.
Texas has a trio of amazing zoos in the shape of Dallas, Houston and Fort Worth, as well as above average zoos such as Caldwell, Cameron Park, San Antonio, El Paso, Gladys Porter, Natural Bridge Wildlife Ranch, Fossil Rim, plus a SeaWorld and notable aquatic establishments such as Texas State Aquarium, Dallas World Aquarium and Moody Gardens.
I think that I'd personally steer zoo nerds towards Texas, as the overall quality is arguably higher because California has a few more second-rate facilities and a couple of big-city zoos (Los Angeles and San Franciso) in steep decline. If one is into herps then Texas is a mecca, as when I spent a good chunk of my summer there in 2015, I saw a crazy number of reptiles and amphibians in the state. Dallas World Aquarium had quite a few herps, Texas Discovery Gardens had 20-25 species, Dallas Zoo had circa 120 species, Caldwell Zoo had 40+ species, Houston close to 100 species, Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo had 140 species, Abilene Zoo had around 40 species, San Antonio Zoo still has a massive collection and Fort Worth Zoo had circa 115 species. Plus, Reptilandia has opened since then and that's probably another 120 species right there. Snakes, lizards and chelonians galore in Texas! It would be intriguing to know how many different herp species can be found in captivity in that one state.
But I do think that @Kalaw brings up an excellent point in terms of elite zoos and the San Diego parks are a massive draw as they are obviously A-list collections in southern California. While one could make a convincing argument that overall Texas might be the #1 state for an overseas nerd to spend a couple of weeks touring around, there isn't a single A-list, elite zoo anywhere.
California has the three enormous San Diego parks (zoo, safari park, SeaWorld), Living Desert (a huge favourite of mine), Oakland, Fresno Chaffee, Los Angeles, and around 30 aquariums including famous ones like California Academy of Sciences (containing Steinhart Aquarium), Birch Aquarium, Aquarium of the Pacific and Monterey Bay Aquarium.
Texas has a trio of amazing zoos in the shape of Dallas, Houston and Fort Worth, as well as above average zoos such as Caldwell, Cameron Park, San Antonio, El Paso, Gladys Porter, Natural Bridge Wildlife Ranch, Fossil Rim, plus a SeaWorld and notable aquatic establishments such as Texas State Aquarium, Dallas World Aquarium and Moody Gardens.
I think that I'd personally steer zoo nerds towards Texas, as the overall quality is arguably higher because California has a few more second-rate facilities and a couple of big-city zoos (Los Angeles and San Franciso) in steep decline. If one is into herps then Texas is a mecca, as when I spent a good chunk of my summer there in 2015, I saw a crazy number of reptiles and amphibians in the state. Dallas World Aquarium had quite a few herps, Texas Discovery Gardens had 20-25 species, Dallas Zoo had circa 120 species, Caldwell Zoo had 40+ species, Houston close to 100 species, Animal World & Snake Farm Zoo had 140 species, Abilene Zoo had around 40 species, San Antonio Zoo still has a massive collection and Fort Worth Zoo had circa 115 species. Plus, Reptilandia has opened since then and that's probably another 120 species right there. Snakes, lizards and chelonians galore in Texas! It would be intriguing to know how many different herp species can be found in captivity in that one state.
But I do think that @Kalaw brings up an excellent point in terms of elite zoos and the San Diego parks are a massive draw as they are obviously A-list collections in southern California. While one could make a convincing argument that overall Texas might be the #1 state for an overseas nerd to spend a couple of weeks touring around, there isn't a single A-list, elite zoo anywhere.
Last edited:
Texas and Florida, but Florida is probably an easier state to "hop" between cities and zoos. The cities are, largely, closer together than Texas.
Ohio would be a good option with a lot of really good zoos close together too. Honestly, Ohio (along with Northern Kentucky) is also a really good place for zoos.
Ohio would be a good option with a lot of really good zoos close together too. Honestly, Ohio (along with Northern Kentucky) is also a really good place for zoos.
Persephone
Well-Known Member
While it’s not in the same state, Omaha is within three hours of Kansas City Zoo and the eastern mole in Lakeside Nature Center. Lee G Simmons is extremely skippable if you’ve seen the animals inside before, but it is a really good facility for seeing some US natives if they’re new to you, including some excellent bird exhibits.
Columbus is a reasonable drive to Cincinnati, Detroit, The Wilds, Louisville, and Toledo.
Am I saying that any of these are better than The Acela Corridor, Texas, or Florida? Not really. I’ve only been to one good facility apiece in Texas, the Northeast, or California so I can’t really judge.
I’ve seen Florida pop up a few times in the thread, and while it certainly has a lot of facilities I’m not sure about the quality? I only really see DAK, SeaWorld, Miami, and maybe Jacksonville, Busch, and St. Augustine spoken highly of on the site. Feels weaker than Texas or California. Still probably worth a visit, still probably better than at least the Ohio cluster.
Columbus is a reasonable drive to Cincinnati, Detroit, The Wilds, Louisville, and Toledo.
Am I saying that any of these are better than The Acela Corridor, Texas, or Florida? Not really. I’ve only been to one good facility apiece in Texas, the Northeast, or California so I can’t really judge.
I’ve seen Florida pop up a few times in the thread, and while it certainly has a lot of facilities I’m not sure about the quality? I only really see DAK, SeaWorld, Miami, and maybe Jacksonville, Busch, and St. Augustine spoken highly of on the site. Feels weaker than Texas or California. Still probably worth a visit, still probably better than at least the Ohio cluster.
Florida is strong, your list is missing the major facilities of ZooTampa and the Florida Aquarium. ZooTampa doesn't have the collection that it once did, but it is still a great place, and the remodeled manatee center will open soon which should improve that area of the zoo a lot. The Florida Aquarium is a really good aquarium, one of the best that I have seen, and it is only getting better over the next couple of years. Gatorland in Orlando is quite good, if you are into crocodilians. Naples Zoo and Brevard Zoo are really up and coming zoos on the smaller/medium size; they don't get a lot of publicity on ZooChat due to the locations. The new Mote Sea in Sarasota should be really good smaller/medium aquarium when it opens later this year.
Is is stronger than California? Probably overall state wide, but California is incredibly strong in the LA/SD/Palm Springs area, but otherwise it is a little lacking state wide, and it is a large state. Texas is really strong, IMO probably the best state overall, but it is such a large state without much between LA and Monterey Bay.