Based on this and your other posts, I'm beginning to suspect the only reason you are on Zoo Chat is to express your dislike of New York City zoos. While some of the points in this post I think are unwarranted and/or not evidence of a zoo in decline, there are other ones that I do think at least deserve some discussion.
If cancelling plans for a new exhibit is evidence of a zoo in decline, then we could say basically every zoo in the United States is declining
. Many zoos announce grand master plans, with plenty of new exhibits, new animals, etc., and the reality is that as times change, the plans have to change too for a variety of reasons- whether they be financial, the ability to acquire a particular species, advancing technology, changing standards for keeping animals, or a new director wanting to move the zoo in a different direction. Oftentimes, master plans are designed that are for twenty years or more, in which case it is an almost certainty that plans will need to change before the later projects are completed.
And in how good of exhibits were these species housed? The aquarium doesn't exactly have an infinite amount of space, and none of the three species you mentioned are small, per say. Furthermore, none of those three species are very common in zoos, it's likely the aquarium would be unable to source more even if they wanted to, given the current state of the populations.
I can agree with this- Turtle Back Zoo is a very respectable zoo, albeit not a perfect one. It's also larger than any of the four smaller NYC zoos and doesn't have the same degree of historical buildings that need to be preserved, so it has had a different set of challenges than the WCS zoos. That's not to discount Turtle Back Zoo, though- it really is a great zoo, and one with a lot of newer exhibits.
Some of those are actually animals that Bronx Zoo *does* exhibit. There are both white and greater one-horned rhinos at the Bronx Zoo, and multiple marsupial species (Matschie's tree kangaroo in Jungle World, feathertail glider in Mouse House). Orangutans in particular would be a great species for the zoo to add- but at the end of the day it'd be impossible for the zoo to have every species someone may want. I'm sure in an alternate reality we'd be here talking about a Bronx Zoo which exhibited each of those species, but complaining about the lack of gorillas, grizzly bears, giraffes, and tigers
.
The nocturnal exhibit was closed during the Great Recession- when cultural institutions (such as zoos, museums, etc.) were hit particularly hard. Just about every zoo had to cut costs somehow, whether that be through laying off staff, downsizing, deferring maintenance, etc. If the Bronx Zoo didn't close World of Darkness, they would've had to close a different exhibit instead or make massive cuts to another department if they wanted to stay afloat.
That is most certainly not true- only a few years ago the New York Aquarium opened Ocean Wonders: Sharks, which is easily the best aquarium exhibit I've ever seen! WCS also may not have the funds available right now for another major project- they've had to invest a lot into maintenance and repairs in recent years (both at Prospect Park and the Aquarium), and running a zoo, let alone five, is a very costly endeavor to begin with.
Why does a good aquarium in New York need to come at the expense of a good aquarium in Atlanta? I'd love it if both cities had excellent aquariums (and as a matter of fact they do!)
In what way would that be a crime? Not every zoo needs to house or breed every species. Breeding elephants is very expensive and takes up a lot of space, which may be more resources than the Bronx Zoo is willing to dedicate to a single species. Even though Bronx Zoo isn't limited in physical space, the cost of staffing is still a limiting resource for zoos, and elephants are a species which typically needs a large number of dedicated keepers to house correctly.
It would've been impossible for the zoo to build improved exhibits for every species they once held, as it would've been way too expensive to maintain all of those exhibits, especially in terms of staffing but also in terms of keeping all the exhibits up to date. Bronx Zoo chose to invest in other species instead, and while it would be nice to see some of those species at the Bronx Zoo, what they did choose to invest in (e.g., lemurs, gorillas, tigers, snow leopards, geladas) are all really great species in incredible exhibits, too. That's not even mentioning the fact some of the species on your list would be literally impossible for the zoo to acquire today.
Wow what spirited defense by , obviously , zealous , supporters of , particularly , WCS run New York City zoological institutions - little mention of SI Zoo , which has an autonomous zoological society.
To answer a few points :
Yes , I may be “Gothamcentric” in my criticism (Evaluation?) on the state of
NYC zoos - because I live there and have attended them since the 50s- as a child- and have a vested interest in such.
I have of course traveled the world and had the privilege of attending zoos in
London , Chester, Belfast, Dublin, Paris, Monaco, Berlin, Munich, Frankfort, Madrid, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Zurich, Rotterdam, Moscow, Rome, Tenerife,Pretoria , Krueger Park (Not a zoo), Tokyo, Surabaya, Peking, Osaka,Yokohama , Sydney, Healesville, Melbourne , Perth, Nairobi, Bangkok, Chang Mai, Bogor , Dubbo, Kampala,Kinshasha etc, etc as well as every major zoo in every major city in the U.S.: LA, Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Detroit, Cleveland , Cinncinatti, Dallas, Fort Worth, Atlanta - etc, etc - so I do have a first hand basis for comparison.
I grew up in the “postage stamping “ era of zoological collection by which a
Zoo’s collection was measured by the number of species it exhibited - at one point the “Bronx” has over a 1,000.
I believe a zoo serves the purpose of exhibiting a diversified zoogeographic taxonomy and breeding critically endangered species in captivity and exhibiting “show animals” to attract attention
The NY zoos should be replicating species but have y unique collections devoted to specific taxa or zoogeographic realms .
Central Park - being on Manhattan “island@ could have, specifically , devoted itself to island species - ie:
Aye Aye, Orangutan - Bornean or Sumatran - Sun bears , a Galapagos exhibit etc.
The foolish notion of Prospect Park being a “Children’s Zoo” is absurd .
Children only like rabbits , skunks and farm animals but, not , leopards, hippos ,
Asiatic black bear , black rhino - all of which they once held - is absurd.
Queens needs an indoor facility to exhibit reptiles and amphibia year round and non temperate species - if they are truly going to represent an “Americas “
collection
The aquarium was intended to be a combination Shedd/ Marineland type facility heralded as, the “largest in the world “ , when first launched in 1957 - some kind of compensation to Brooklyn for the loss of the Dodgers.
The Bronx Zoo was a greater institution than San Diego when I first attending now, no one , would make that comparison
With less area San Diego still manages to house African elephant , polar bears , oragutan , raptors displayed majesterially , Pygmy and Nile hippos,
Mark my words there will come a day - and it is threatened nearly every year - that the former municipal zoos will be closed for budgetary considerations.
How could the Bronx afford to build a carousel and playground - on the former yak then gnu then oryx site - and a facility for orangutans? - which was initially proposed as and adjunct to Jungle World ?
The reason for all this comes down to:
MONEY
Check attendance figures for US zoos
New York is not near the top.
Attendance - per capita - is less than Columbus .
And membership ?
20,000,000 in the NY metro area should have membership a nearly a million
Is it ? No
Apathy on the part of New York City residents
If the attendance were greater and membership more there would be more dollars for investment for the capital projects I espouse and some of you eschew .
I am for the zoos : bigger, better best
