"Boring" animals

Pygathrix

Pygathrix

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
We have some threads about “trendy” animals and about what we’d like to see in zoos but can’t. What about the ones that are everywhere but you don’t want to see?

Eg small common gregarious mammals like prairie dogs, meerkats, coatis, capuchins, ringtail lemurs. They make good exhibits popular with the public and are satisfying to watch as they are active and there is usually a lot of social behaviour going on. But I find them boring….not intrinsically I admit but because wherever you go, there they are…

Anything domesticated. I always have a quick scoot around the pets corner just in case they are hiding anything interesting (eg koalas at San Diego, aardvarks in London) but basically anything from a farm or pet shop shouldn’t be in a zoo (except to feed the proper wild animals). That includes llamas, obviously.

Green iguanas, red-eared terrapins and other pet-shoppy reptiles.

Anyone got any others?
 
There are people that insist that something like a "boring" animal does not exist.

Personally, I think that this is only partly true; of course, almost every animal has something interesting to offer-yet it depends on the individual willing to discover this "special" and on the means needed to do so. Therefore, for most people, a lion is more interesting (even if it sleeps all day long) than an antlion, and a bear is better known to them than a water bear. This attitude might change at least in some individuals when being introduced to and discovering the "micro-fauna"; however, for many, many people, only the mentioned mammals are top attractions they're willing to pay for.

I think that a lot of sympathy/antipathy torwards certain species is based on personal experiences as well as on Your social surrounding. As a small child. the little sister of a friend of mine was terribly afraid of dogs-just like her mother. The first thing she did when she moved out to live on her own as an adult was to get a puppy...
This btw is also a reason why I think zoos, as well as national parks, botanical gardens etc., are tremendously important on a very fundamental emotional level: at least judging from my personal observation, I'd dare to say that positive experiences at an early age (like petting a friendly goat, feeding a giraffe or just thehappy family trip in itself) can have a very long-lasting effect in terms of the individual's future relationship to animals & nature.

The lack of interest Pygathrix admits to have in terms of the smaller mammals or "pet-shoppy" reptiles is a typical aspect of human nature: the more common something is for You, the less interesting & observable and thus more "boring" it becomes. So if Indris, water civets or pacaranas were as common in zoos as their relatives mentioned above, I'm sure they wouldn't turn a head in terms of enthusiastic zoofans.
The latest version of the "Rare-animals-I-want-to-see-in-zoos" in this thread just illustrates this: no zoofan would be highly interested in kodkods or mountain tapirs if they were a dime in a dozen in most zoos. And I dare to say that f.e. a walia ibex is most likely just as "boring" as any other ibex.
Maybe we're all like little spoiled kids who just don't appretiate what we have and wish for what we cannot have. I'm not excluding myself here; like I mentioned in another thread, a zoo completely or mainly (sic!) consisting of the most common pet species wouldn't sound all too attractive-while I would jump at the opportunity to watch Arabian leopards or Saolas. Nevertheless, I freely admit that I also have a soft spot for more than one species/breed of domestic/pet animals as well as for individuals of the pet shop-reptiles-often due to positive personal experiences with them; and I acknowledge that these critters are also important for the zoo in terms of education.

What I do find boring is not the particular animal, but how the animal is presented in zoos. In recent years, zoos have become more and more uniform; if based on zoogeography, it's usually (very simply put) like:
Africa = lion, zebra, giraffe, elephant, meerkat, gorilla, RRH, flamingo; maybe a antelope or two and white rhinos
Asia = tiger, Orang-Utan, Oriental otter, fallow deer, Reeve's muntjac
America = mara, rhea, llama/alphaca, marmoset, macaw, bison
Europe = ibex, fallow deer...
Australia = Bennett's wallaby, emu, budgie, Bearded Dragon

"Seal" equals California sea lion or Harbour seal; penguin = Humbolt Penguin, etc. etc.


After visiting a few zoos in a row, You start to feel like visiting stores of the same chain which differ only slightly locally: "Meerkats on Your right next to the lions, flamingos next to the zoo entrance & gift shop"; it's this uniformity and lack of boldness to be more creative that I consider boring; the occurance of the very same species again and again just adds to this. This doesn't mean that You can't have a fine zoo with the common creatures; but to do so, You also have to be more creative. Rhine Zoo is a nice example for that; quite a bunch of zoos aren't.
 
Last edited:
Agree with both. Why is it that whenever a zoo is creating a new exhibit almost every zoo chooses the most common animal out of the lot. I can understand that zoo's don't import rare and endangered species from the wild, but with so many animals around in Europe, there's bound to be a more interesting alternative?

I've been to Skansen's Aquarium in Stockholm and saw the Harrison's Antelope Groundsquirrel's exhibit and it was the most exciting small mammal exhibit i've seen in a long time. Why does every Zoo in my neighbourhood create an exhibit for meerkats then...

Creating a walk-through lemur enclosure is a must-have apparantly, but why with crowned, white-headed, collared, black and mongoose lemurs around does everyone need ring-tails... Kangaroos same way, why does everyone have Bennet's and noone keeps agile, tammar, parma or swampwallabies.

Places are sought for Gaurs, and though i understand these animals need some serious contruction around them, at least some zoo's should be able to cater for them? Same goes for red forest buffalo.

Some zoo's keep spotted-necked otters, and some even have Cape-clawless otter but every zoo just takes in Short-clawed. Do the others not breed or something? Finally Avifauna are going into keeping Kiwi. Apparantly these animals are easily available for decent zoo's but noone wants them. I know that they can make a boring exhibit if you put them in a normal pheasentry (thanks Antwerp) but when you create a decent night-house around them with view-in holes you should be able to display this extraordinary creature shouldn't you?

I wonder if it has anything to do with the knowledge of curators though. I've read an article stating that during a curator's meeting some people didn't know the word "sexual dimorphism" and one even claimed to have crossbred a goat and an antelope to create a "takin". Hopefully i'm wrong though, and it's just a matter of not wanting to put in the effort and costs of international paperwork and transport...
 
Pygathrix said:
We have some threads about “trendy†animals and about what we’d like to see in zoos but can’t. What about the ones that are everywhere but you don’t want to see?

Eg small common gregarious mammals like prairie dogs, meerkats, coatis, capuchins, ringtail lemurs. They make good exhibits popular with the public and are satisfying to watch as they are active and there is usually a lot of social behaviour going on. But I find them boring….not intrinsically I admit but because wherever you go, there they are…

Anything domesticated. I always have a quick scoot around the pets corner just in case they are hiding anything interesting (eg koalas at San Diego, aardvarks in London) but basically anything from a farm or pet shop shouldn’t be in a zoo (except to feed the proper wild animals). That includes llamas, obviously.

Green iguanas, red-eared terrapins and other pet-shoppy reptiles.

Anyone got any others?
Click to expand...

I'm with you on the domestics.

When you say aardvarks in London, were you referring to aardvarks in times gone by?
 
@jwer: You mentioned an important point: in many cases, it depends on the knowledge, creativity and courage to try something else of the persons involved that decide whether the exhibit is a hit-or rubbish.
And this is partly the answer to Your question why it is mostly the most common species that is chosen-because imitation is easier than creativity. If the visitors in the other zoos seem to be fine with meerkats, why look beyond one's nose and try something new? Meerkat exhibit, model B1 version 10.0001., here we go...And the sad thing: You have zoos like Frankfurt that have plenty of surplus animals of species like Australian Water Rats, and no zoos wants them...while there seem to be not enough meerkats available. The end of the story: the zoo quits breeding them, and another species is lost for the zoo world.
However, I think there is almost something like "vogues" in terms of species in zoos; lately, the White-nosed Coati seems to have been replaced by the Coatimundi, and the Pallas's Cat, once a typical animal of East Bloc zoos, but rare in the West, can be found in many zoos. Maybe, in 10 years we'll ask here: is there any zoo left keeping meerkats?

I can also answer Your question about the kangaroos: in regard to general husbandry, bennett's seem to be hardier; agiles f.e. can be rather flighty sometimes.
 
Last edited:
I forgot about short-clawed otters...

I agree people can have positive experiences from pets and domesticated animals, but I'd prefer not to see them in the zoo.

The "chain-store" comment is spot-on. It probably doesn't matter to the citizens local to a zoo if it only has common species, if that's the only zoo that they go to. And I can appreciate a good exhibit even if it is of something like meerkats. But to the people who frequent this forum, we hope to see something a little different when we travel (sometimes a long way) to a new zoo. The last "new" zoo (for me) I went to was Budapest a few months ago, and I began to wonder why I'd bothered as the exhibits were bog-standard and I only saw one species I had never seen before. I felt like I could have been anywhere.
 
Pygathrix said:
But to the people who frequent this forum, we hope to see something a little different when we travel (sometimes a long way) to a new zoo.
Click to expand...

Exactly; so a zoofan is left with a very odd situation: looking forward to zoos where the husbandry is obviously bad but which have plenty of rare species to offer, and being bored by zoos where the husbandry is good but the collection is really dull. Luckily (more or less), there are a lot of variations between these two extremes.

But I think that also the majority of zoogoers who is not "into" zoos does appretiate if the zoos they visit have something they haven't seen somewhere else and that maybe even surprises them. Otherwise, I couldn't explain Leipzig Zoo getting a pangolin...;)
 
Boring animals

Well , that all depends where you come from .

Australians may think that koala , kangaroo , wallaby , emu , kookaburra etc might be boring . ( Or maybe not . Consider meself slapped down in this case )
But that will definately not be the case for people from other countries .
I find sheep and cows boring , but try telling that to Japanese folk !
As NZ does not have the laws to allow the displaying of snakes , ANY relatively active snake will be of some fascination to many NZers , even if they are repulsed by it .
I have never seen a moose before , but that may be considered boring to folk in NE America .
There are no skunks or squirrels in NZ either , but they are somewhat commonplace in USA ( squirrels also in many other countries )
I have seen heaps of kiwis in our zoos , but I reckon our ornithological members like Hornybill would dearly love to see one , and watch it for hours
.......
As we are all from several different countries on several different continents , it will be almost impossible to categorise an animal as boring

perhaps the exceptions might be rats/mice ?
 
its all in the display for me. i'll watch anything with fascination if you give me a different perspective on it.

unfortunately, i think this copy-cat attitude when it comes to design of animal exhibits is a very real one (anyone for a tiger temple or lory landing?) and some zoos (or should we say design firms) seem to copy others with little thought into trying to create their own innovations.
 
jwer said:
Finally Avifauna are going into keeping Kiwi. Apparantly these animals are easily available for decent zoo's but noone wants them. I know that they can make a boring exhibit if you put them in a normal pheasentry (thanks Antwerp) but when you create a decent night-house around them with view-in holes you should be able to display this extraordinary creature shouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Sounds great but the reality is Kiwis don't show well even in nocturnal exhibits. Virtually every major tourist resort in New Zealand has a well- designed nocturnal 'Kiwi House' for visitors to get a chance to see this 'national treasure.' But your chances of seeing one active during a visit are quite slim unless you're prepared to wait a long time. So not an entirely successful idea perhaps....
 
I've been to frankfurt zoo a few times. one of the few zoos that displays kiwis and I have always seen one or more. so it seems feasable to construct a good, visible enclosure for a kiwi.

further on the subject of boring/common animals. there are some animals you just MUST have as a zoo. after all: what's a zoo without a lion or a tiger or an aquarium without Nemo (whatever happened to clownfish). so I can understand that part.

but I think it's essential to have some uncommon animals as well. and if the zoo is continental I appreciate to view some of each group of animals (mammals, fish, reptiles, birds and if possible invertebrate) that way you can easily combine common and uncommon animals.
 
Yeah, and the visitors even start to look up the plants in the kiwi exhibit-after all, it's a bird, isn't it? Saw that happen several times...;)

Nigel, though I agree on You that the interest of zoo visitors in regard to certain species might differ due to different cultural backgrounds, I'd like to remind that there are several species that are considered "interesting" by most zoo visitors worldwide (elephants, giraffes, big cats, bears, especially Polar bears & Pandas, "talking" parrots, penguins, hippos, meerkats...) and some that are equally considered "boring"-small nocturnal mammals, the majority of fish & bird species as well of invertebrates...
And mice and rats are, depending on the presentation ("Mouse House"), quite often pretty popular.

So far, I haven't seen Japanese zoo visitors being particularily interested in domestic breeds; maybe it depends on what breed is kept in the zoo that might not occur in Japan and thus be unfamiliar & "exotic" to them-just like Pustertaler Sprinzen and Dahomey Cattle would be for Australians/Enzedders. ;)
 
you're right, after all it is a bird.
nonetheless I have stood for only a few minutes before seeing one. so people you describe (and I've seen them too) are really impatient (or just blind to what's just in front of them)

irony just struck me. what is considered "boring" in this topic are often the popular animals.
whereas freaks like us really like the animals other people would describe as boring.
 
@forumbully: That "after all, it's a bird" is actually a direct quotation of what the people in front of the exhibits kept on saying...;)
The impatience and short attention span is an important factor when average Joe Zoo Visitor judges the attractiveness of the particular animal-which makes You wonder why lions & koalas are nevertheless popular...Well, some just have "the look" and "it". And the unpopular "wallflowers", in zoological sense, just have us freaks as an audience. Well, at least we "freaks" usually behave better around the animals than the noisy masses. And we're loyal-unlike the "Knut" fans...;)
 
Pertinax said:
Sounds great but the reality is Kiwis don't show well even in nocturnal exhibits. Virtually every major tourist resort in New Zealand has a well- designed nocturnal 'Kiwi House' for visitors to get a chance to see this 'national treasure.' But your chances of seeing one active during a visit are quite slim unless you're prepared to wait a long time. So not an entirely successful idea perhaps....
Click to expand...

actually if kiwi are housed properly they make very good displays. The problem is that hardly anywhere does house them properly. Kiwi get stressed very easily and almost all kiwi houses are open to anyone who wanders in, with the attendant screaming, yelling, banging on the glass, flash photography, etc etc. The consequence is that the poor kiwi spend almost their whole waking time hiding at the back waiting for the periods when there are no visitors in there. "My" kiwi house (where I work) is only accessible with a guide (such as myself) and there is strictly no photography or filming, no noise, no cellphones, and we are in there to control what the people do. The kiwi are out foraging for their entire "night" and are excellent display birds, simply because of the conditions they are kept in. Unfortunately very few other kiwi houses are guided and most tourists who visit them do not see the kiwi. Most people who visit our kiwi come out amazed that they were actually walking around doing stuff; most peoples' impressions of normal kiwi behaviour is that they should be just sitting in a ball not doing anything, when in reality they are incredibly active birds and should be on the go almost constantly looking for food, interacting with each other, etc. Some of the experiences we have only highlight the reason why most kiwi houses are so poor, such as the parents who come up carrying a screaming kid and want to go in the kiwi house ("oh, he'll quieten down once we're in there"...).
 
Someone said that giraffe make a good display no matter where you are but sometimes i just glance and think "OK, I'll just keep walking 'cos they aren't doing anything." What i mean is, If you've seen them once then that's enough. Same goes for lions. I've only ever seen them move once in a zoo.
I reckon it depends on presentation because at werribee the cheetahs are always active because they can look out over the camels and scimitar horned oryx exhibit and they can come up to the glass and size themselves up next to little kids. Just my opinion.
 
Chlidonias said:
actually if kiwi are housed properly they make very good displays.
Click to expand...

I read your post on this with great interest and of course it makes absolute sense. Very like the situation in some children's zoos and farmparks which allow children to handle the animals and where even completely tame lambs are sometimes so stressed by children mishandling them that when they see a group of kids coming, they quickly hide away out of reach...

I visited several Kiwi houses when I was in NZ(long time ago now)- I must have seen Kiwi in one or two but mostly the experiences were much as you describe. I also saw Kiwis(including Lesser Spotted) at a breeding station on the North Island though I can't remember where it was. Even better I met a wild one out foraging one night on(if I remember correctly) Little Barrier Island... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top