Big Name Zoos in Decline

[HTZ]

Can you think of any "big name" / historically significant zoos that are no longer top-tier zoos in 2024? Zoos that may have a decreasing animal collection, outdated facilities, or a lack of growth, and seem like their biggest claim to fame is that they were an elite zoo 50-100 years ago?

 

[cornu aspersum]

Can you think of any "big name" / historically significant zoos that are no longer top-tier zoos in 2024? Zoos that may have a decreasing animal collection, outdated facilities, or a lack of growth, and seem like their biggest claim to fame is that they were an elite zoo 50-100 years ago?

I believe London is like this. While not bad and often cited as a top 20 UK zoo, it is not representative of its precious species count (including rarities and an aquarium) and many Zoochatters believe that it is not using it's available facilities to their full potential( something I agree with).

 

[StoppableSan]

Bronx Zoo is pretty close as far as having a declining collection in terms of heavy-hitting ABC species (first polar bears (understandably so) and next, elephants; the zoo's indicated that Happy and Patty will be their last elephants, but I do think there's *some* hope, that elephants could be brought back in the future - there is an opportunity to turn Happy and Patty's situation into something positive for the zoo and the general public). While they have been rotating between rare species and have a stellar bird and herptile collection, Wild Asia Monorail's future hangs in the balance, and the zoo hasn't had an indicator of anything new exhibit-wise for the longest time. (Sticking pine trees in an old bear grotto and getting dholes doesn't count as a "major" exhibit, as cool as dholes are). Even if Aliens Among Us does come to fruition, it's not going to do so for a long while. Maybe it's just me.

 

[NMM]

I believe London is like this. While not bad and often cited as a top 20 UK zoo, it is not representative of its precious species count (including rarities and an aquarium) and many Zoochatters believe that it is not using it's available facilities to their full potential( something I agree with).

I would agree with London and I would add that a lot of it it isn't really the zoos fault.

At 36 acres it is no longer going to be possible to keep what would be regarded as a world class animal collection in that space with modern standards for enclosures. On the whole they still do a good job with what they have, but there are examples were they could do something more interesting. The Australian outback exhibit on the Mappin Terraces being one example.

Another problem they have that hampers them is that a number of enclosures from the past have been designated as listed buildings for either having historical significance or being architecturally interesting. The zoo cannot remove or modify these. They have to work around them.

 

[cornu aspersum]

I would agree with London and I would add that a lot of it it isn't really the zoos fault.

At 36 acres it is no longer going to be possible to keep what would be regarded as a world class animal collection in that space with modern standards for enclosures. On the whole they still do a good job with what they have, but there are examples were they could do something more interesting. The Australian outback exhibit on the Mappin Terraces being one example.

Another problem they have that hampers them is that a number of enclosures from the past have been designated as listed buildings for either having historical significance or being architecturally interesting. The zoo cannot remove or modify these. They have to work around them.

The zoo really is in an unfortunate situation( hopefully times are changing with SLORA). Another burden is that due to it's history zoo enthusiasts are going to be more harsh towards it compared to other collections( sometimes rightly so).

 

[Fallax]

Honestly I think the situation in London has been on the up recently, especially this year so far has been very good. The 2010s were not that great but this decade has seen some really great changes.

 

[Kalaw]

Although I am not surprised that London got a mention on this thread, I think it is thoroughly undeserved.

In 2019, it would be very appropriate to say that the zoo was in decline. The Aquarium closed, the North Bank Aviaries closed, Snowdon Aviary was emptied, long-time favourites such as Bearded Pigs and Giant Anteaters were departed, and the issue of wasted space was worsened when the former anteater and vicuna enclosures were transformed into a mini golf course. In 2020, this issue was of course worsened when the zoo was forced to close due to the pandemic and subsequent lockdown.

However, since those tremendous low points, the zoo has seen nothing but major improvement. Between SLoRA (the new Reptile and Amphibian House, indisputably the greatest in the country with regards to both its collection and its exhibitry), Monkey Valley (the repurposed Snowdon Aviary, now an excellent, although admittedly underused, colobus walkthrough) and Giants of the Galapagos (an excellent Giant Tortoise enclosure), we have received three major new exhibits. Enclosures that have been empty and underused for a long time have received new inhabitants (such as the Chinese Water Deer in the former reindeer enclosure and the Grey Mouse Lemurs in the third enclosure in the Aye-aye House which, if I am not mistaken, has been empty since its creation), and several other exciting new species have arrived, both in terms of crowd-pleasers (Ostrich) and in terms of enthusiast-pleasing rarities (the only Small Indian Mongoose in Europe). Although the majority of them were invertebrates, the past year has seen a net increase of over 50 species, which is nothing short of remarkable, and larger than some zoo's entire collections. Top that off with several exciting births among the zoo's star attractions (gorillas and lions, which will no doubt prove to be great tools for the marketing department) and rarities with conservational significance (Laos Warty Newts and Mountain Chickens), and you have a zoo that is clearly in a state of drastic improvements. To do that on a post-lockdown budget that has caused problems and even closure, while still spending more on in-situ conservation projects than any other zoo in Europe, is phenomenal.

Any claims that London is a state of decline nowadays can only realistically be in terms of comparing it to the seventies or eighties, which, to put it in football terms, could be seen as its prime. And it was in the sense that ZSL had the largest species inventory on the planet, was a gamechanger in the breeding of certain species and had every large, star attraction animal imaginable. However, if you look at any of the enclosures which said species were offered at the time, calling this its 'prime' seems a little odd - while the collection was immeasurably excellent, the display of said collection was horrific, and I hope we can all agree that animal welfare should always be prioritised over the extent or comprehensiveness of a collection. There are only two criticisms I have of the zoo at the moment - the underuse of certain areas, such as the Mappin Terraces and North Bank Aviaries (although I believe there are plans to change the latter) and the poor quality of the giraffe enclosure, which even then isn't that bad for just two females, and with the decision already made not house bulls there, we need not worry about that changing.

It was mentioned upthread that London is considered to be one of the top twenty zoos in the UK, which is beyond doubt true. However, and this may be a hot take, I would even go so far as to say that it is a shoo-in for top ten - or in my, admittedly slightly biassed, opinion, top five! Short of its potential? Perhaps. In decline? Quite the opposite!

 

[cornu aspersum]

Although I am not surprised that London got a mention on this thread, I think it is thoroughly undeserved.

In 2019, it would be very appropriate to say that the zoo was in decline. The Aquarium closed, the North Bank Aviaries closed, Snowdon Aviary was emptied, long-time favourites such as Bearded Pigs and Giant Anteaters were departed, and the issue of wasted space was worsened when the former anteater and vicuna enclosures were transformed into a mini golf course. In 2020, this issue was of course worsened when the zoo was forced to close due to the pandemic and subsequent lockdown.

However, since those tremendous low points, the zoo has seen nothing but major improvement. Between SLoRA (the new Reptile and Amphibian House, indisputably the greatest in the country with regards to both its collection and its exhibitry), Monkey Valley (the repurposed Snowdon Aviary, now an excellent, although admittedly underused, colobus walkthrough) and Giants of the Galapagos (an excellent Giant Tortoise enclosure), we have received three major new exhibits. Enclosures that have been empty and underused for a long time have received new inhabitants (such as the Chinese Water Deer in the former reindeer enclosure and the Grey Mouse Lemurs in the third enclosure in the Aye-aye House which, if I am not mistaken, has been empty since its creation), and several other exciting new species have arrived, both in terms of crowd-pleasers (Ostrich) and in terms of enthusiast-pleasing rarities (the only Small Indian Mongoose in Europe). Although the majority of them were invertebrates, the past year has seen a net increase of over 50 species, which is nothing short of remarkable, and larger than some zoo's entire collections. Top that off with several exciting births among the zoo's star attractions (gorillas and lions, which will no doubt prove to be great tools for the marketing department) and rarities with conservational significance (Laos Warty Newts and Mountain Chickens), and you have a zoo that is clearly in a state of drastic improvements. To do that on a post-lockdown budget that has caused problems and even closure, while still spending more on in-situ conservation projects than any other zoo in Europe, is phenomenal.

Any claims that London is a state of decline nowadays can only realistically be in terms of comparing it to the seventies or eighties, which, to put it in football terms, could be seen as its prime. And it was in the sense that ZSL had the largest species inventory on the planet, was a gamechanger in the breeding of certain species and had every large, star attraction animal imaginable. However, if you look at any of the enclosures which said species were offered at the time, calling this its 'prime' seems a little odd - while the collection was immeasurably excellent, the display of said collection was horrific, and I hope we can all agree that animal welfare should always be prioritised over the extent or comprehensiveness of a collection. There are only two criticisms I have of the zoo at the moment - the underuse of certain areas, such as the Mappin Terraces and North Bank Aviaries (although I believe there are plans to change the latter) and the poor quality of the giraffe enclosure, which even then isn't that bad for just two females, and with the decision already made not house bulls there, we need not worry about that changing.

It was mentioned upthread that London is considered to be one of the top twenty zoos in the UK, which is beyond doubt true. However, and this may be a hot take, I would even go so far as to say that it is a shoo-in for top ten - or in my, admittedly slightly biassed, opinion, top five! Short of its potential? Perhaps. In decline? Quite the opposite!

You are quite right. London has done major developments recently and very few things are to be criticized of its welfare. I do agree that I should have specified that it was not living up to it's(current) potential(which is admittedly rather hard to do) rather than being in decline. And of course I should have also specified that I believe a collection should only accept new animals if they have the sufficient means to provide for them.

 

[tigris115]

Tbh, even looking at the zoo in the 70's and 80's, I've seen pictures of it and, while the collection is certainly enviable, the actual exhibit quality was often mid at best and atrocious at worst.

I like rarities and hearty collections as much as the next guy but I think postcard collections are very much over

 

[SusScrofa]

Not sure how historically significant they are in the grand scheme of things, but Detroit, Minnesota and Tampa are three major American zoos that are frequently talked about on this site as having declined in recent years (I've only visited Tampa, and only in recent times so can't give an opinion on this).

Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum isnt exactly a traditional zoo but it has seen a major loss of live species and is another facility bought up as being past its prime. It should also be noted it made Parade magazines list of "Top 10 American zoos" during the 80s but I dont think it would have any shot of that nowadays.

Also on that list at different times were Riverbanks Zoo and Audubon Zoo, but having visited both I would say their days of being near Top 10 in our country is long over.

 

[pachyderm pro]

Not sure how historically significant they are in the grand scheme of things, but Detroit, Minnesota and Tampa are three major American zoos that are frequently talked about on this site as having decl

As someone who's visited Minnesota and Detroit within the last few years, I can definitely agree they suffer from similar issues. Lots of reductions in the collection and underutilized areas at both facilities; Minnesota in particular has recently been replacing phased-out species (dhole, musk ox) with surplus animals already at the zoo (coyote, Przewalski's horse). With that said, both of these zoos have some of the highest standards of exhibit quality I've ever seen. I can't think of a single poor exhibit at Detroit and besides a few odd enclosures in Tropics Trail, Minnesota is also really impressive across the board. It'll be interesting to see what the future holds for these collections. Detroit at least has a new children's zoo area in the works (with bush dogs, hopefully), but Minnesota doesn't seem to have any publicly known plans at the moment.

I've also been Tampa several times and can agree that it needs some work. I'm of the opinion that they really fumbled the newer Florida panther complex and the loss of the excellent African wetlands aviary will always sting. They have some promising plans for the future, but most of them are still largely conceptual and so far off that it's difficult to get excited for them now.

 

[Dassie rat]

I can understand why zoos with hundreds of acres have some very large exhibits. I wonder why relatively small zoos have very large exhibits for a few species. This has led to a great decline in biodiversity in many of these zoos.

 

[Wisp O' Mist]

Minnesota in particular has recently been replacing phased-out species (dhole, musk ox) with surplus animals already at the zoo (coyote, Przewalski's horse).

Off-topic, but the situation with the surplus P-Horses at Minnesota Zoo isn't exactly the zoo's fault.

Those P-Horses were originally earmarked for a reintroduction (To Russia). As Minnesota Zoo is the studbook holder for the species, naturally, it was their responsibility to organize that reintroduction.

The P-Horses were sourced from zoos all across the country, and brought to Minnesota Zoo for introduction and acclimatization purposes. It was never intended that they stay there permanently.

The reintroduction was originally scheduled for October 2020.

The covid-19 pandemic delayed those plans to 2021, and then further still to 2022.

Then, as the world was starting to get up and running again... Russia went to war with Ukraine. That was the last straw, the reintroduction was shelved completely.

The end result? The Minnesota Zoo is now, effectively, stuck with more P-Horses than they know what to do with. The zoo has been trying to find the horses new homes, but, as hoofstock, P-Horses simply aren't in high demand for exhibit. Especially in North America.

You can read about the whole saga here: https://m.startribune.com/ukraine-w...-from-leaving-minnesota-for-russia/600178352/

Minnesota Zoo could hardly have foreseen a world-wide pandemic, much less a war, ruining their P-Horse reintroduction plans.

 

[Tim May]

Any claims that London is a state of decline nowadays can only realistically be in terms of comparing it to the seventies or eighties, which, to put it in football terms, could be seen as its prime.

Obviously it depends on how you define "prime" but I think London Zoo's collection was probably at its prime in the 1930s.

However, if you look at any of the enclosures which said species were offered at the time, calling this its 'prime' seems a little odd - while the collection was immeasurably excellent, the display of said collection was horrific

Times change; it is inevitable that, half-a-century later, animal accommodation from the 1970s will look inadequate by today's standards. However I think it's grossly unfair to describe London Zoo's displays in this era as "horrific".

 

[Kalaw]

Obviously it depends on how you define "prime" but I think London Zoo's collection was probably at its prime in the 1930s.

Times change; it is inevitable that, half-a-century later, animal accommodation from the 1970s will look inadequate by today's standards. However I think it's grossly unfair to describe London Zoo's displays in this era as "horrific".

That's fair enough - I can't claim to be the most knowledgeable about the state of the zoo at this time, as I only began visiting this past decade, and indeed 'horrific' may be a harsh hyperbolization on my part, so I apologise.

However, my point that it is for the better that London somewhat moves away from larger mammals, at least in as large numbers as they once were, still stands, and I think that the attitude held by many on here that the lack of these large mammals at London is an issue is equally unfair.

 

[Strathmorezoo]

Obviously it depends on how you define "prime" but I think London Zoo's collection was probably at its prime in the 1930s.

Times change; it is inevitable that, half-a-century later, animal accommodation from the 1970s will look inadequate by today's standards. However I think it's grossly unfair to describe London Zoo's displays in this era as "horrific".

After reading Clinton Keeling book A Wonderful Year 1938, I would have to agree, London Zoo collection at that time was definitely at its prime.

 

[JVM]

While things look poised to turn around in the immediate future with a lot of positive plans for the future in public discussion, it'd still feel remiss not to mention the decline of Brookfield Zoo Chicago after a decade plus of stagnation. One of the top ten zoos in the country by many accounts in the early 2000s, I think it would struggle to break the top thirty at this moment in time. Tropic World is emblematic of this -- while viewed as one of the great indoor rainforests for a time and world class compared to old concrete cage primate habitats, as more and more world-class outdoor habitats for apes have opened, it is now viewed as a dated relic of another time and is arguably the worst indoor rainforest in America now. The other emblem is the old historic Bear Grottos, which have been without animals for almost fifteen years but remain present, taking up space, not enough resources for a bulldozer. Plans for new elephant habitats and a renovated children's zoo were largely shelved with a small part of the latter plan turned into Wild Encounters. While there are some key behind the scenes reasons for this stagnation, a lot of it is poorly documented and I'm learning new things in my own research pretty often.

That all said, the zoo broke ground a while ago on new outdoor ape habitats and has seen some unprecedented investment, a new master plan is imminent and the zoo has signaled intent to do a number of major renovations in the near future, which are being openly discussed in the press. The zoo is still expanding its collection without compromise, including the addition of Koala, and placing emphasis on building into undeveloped areas of the current site. A new brand identity has also been created as well and the zoo is celebrating its ninetieth anniversary with a lot of press attention. The future is incredibly bright and frankly I think it'll be a turnaround we'll be talking about for years.

 

[Batto]

Tierpark Hagenbeck and Erlebniszoo Hannover

 

[GaryA]

Tierpark Hagenbeck and Erlebniszoo Hannover

Why? No point just quoting names without giving reasons!

 

[15399]

Bronx Zoo is pretty close as far as having a declining collection in terms of heavy-hitting ABC species (first polar bears (understandably so) and next, elephants; the zoo's indicated that Happy and Patty will be their last elephants, but I do think there's *some* hope, that elephants could be brought back in the future - there is an opportunity to turn Happy and Patty's situation into something positive for the zoo and the general public). While they have been rotating between rare species and have a stellar bird and herptile collection, Wild Asia Monorail's future hangs in the balance, and the zoo hasn't had an indicator of anything new exhibit-wise for the longest time. (Sticking pine trees in an old bear grotto and getting dholes doesn't count as a "major" exhibit, as cool as dholes are). Even if Aliens Among Us does come to fruition, it's not going to do so for a long while. Maybe it's just me.

To be fair, while Bronx has certainly been stagnant on new exhibits, at least the exhibits they have, for the most part, have aged extraordinarily well. Even African Plains, which opened in the 1940's, and yet most of it is still a top-tier exhibit. Yes, some parts of Jungle World have aged poorly, and Madagascar! has become surprisingly controversial in recent years, but by and large the zoo's exhibits have not declined, at least in my opinion.

When I think of zoos in decline, I'd instead think of zoos with exhibits that did not age nearly as well, so that the overall perception of the zoo is actually *dropping*, not just staying the same.