"Boring" animals

[Zooplantman]

And while I would like to see a Giant Panda, I don't understand why they are so incredibly popular. It's a small weird bear. That's cool, 50% increase in visitor numbers cool?

Certainly Giant Pandas are not interesting animals to watch One minute viewing them is as good as twenty.
But, they are simply adorable: round and fluffy, rather slow.
You'd never guess from looking how dangerous they could be. But for the public, they have more appeal than any number of hoofstock, or pig, or snake, or bird

 

[Hix]

Certainly Giant Pandas are not interesting animals to watch One minute viewing them is as good as twenty.
But, they are simply adorable: round and fluffy, rather slow.
You'd never guess from looking how dangerous they could be. But for the public, they have more appeal than any number of hoofstock, or pig, or snake, or bird

The same can be said for Koalas.



Hix

 

[Buldeo]

Rabbits. Yes, all of them. I for the life of me don't understand why the Oakland Zoo maintains a "habitat" for them. They could put a decent aviary into that same space.

 

[A.Phantomhive]

I read most of the thread (skimming the bantering). There was some talk about lines between typical-animal zoos and exotics-focused zoos. Wouldn't mixed enclosures be a solution to some problems? Obviously not with highly predatory animals, but I think that if some of the big-hitter animals shared their space with natural neighbors, both ends would be served. I think that enclosures that are interesting for both the public and the animals are indeed very successful, but the whole foot traffic thing can still leave them unnoticed. I like the leaf-cutter ants being near the jags. I agree that public opinion needs to be known and understood, but it should be taken advantage of as well. The last time I went to the Detroit Zoo was years ago, but I remember the ass being placed near more exotic animals. I got to see big-hitters and learn that donkeys make the stereotypical sounds! If you want an animal to be seen, put it where the public will see it.

 

[elefante]

I read most of the thread (skimming the bantering). There was some talk about lines between typical-animal zoos and exotics-focused zoos. Wouldn't mixed enclosures be a solution to some problems? Obviously not with highly predatory animals, but I think that if some of the big-hitter animals shared their space with natural neighbors, both ends would be served. I think that enclosures that are interesting for both the public and the animals are indeed very successful, but the whole foot traffic thing can still leave them unnoticed. I like the leaf-cutter ants being near the jags. I agree that public opinion needs to be known and understood, but it should be taken advantage of as well. The last time I went to the Detroit Zoo was years ago, but I remember the ass being placed near more exotic animals. I got to see big-hitters and learn that donkeys make the stereotypical sounds! If you want an animal to be seen, put it where the public will see it.

I agree, good exhibits should include the "big-hitters" and some of the lesser-known species. I think there was a thread similar to this somewhere before. When you say "ass" in the Detroit Zoo do you mean African ass? Do they still have them?

 

[A.Phantomhive]

Yeah, there's an interesting thread about strange enclosure buddies. The last time I was at the Detroit Zoo was maybe third grade. All I remember was seeing a donkey. I don't know what kind. I think there was only one. I was little, but it stuck with me 'cause where I live seeing a groundhog is amazing. I probably wouldn't have gotten to see it if it wasn't near more popular animals. Around here, we have favorite neighborhood squirrels that everyone gets excited about. Seeing the donkey just stuck with me.

 

[slendercat]

well i've just been to a zoo and i saw two enclosure next to each other with people crowded around them,i thought it was going to be lions and wolves but no,they were racoons and llamas

 

[Shorts]

well i've just been to a zoo and i saw two enclosure next to each other with people crowded around them,i thought it was going to be lions and wolves but no,they were racoons and llamas

I'm not that surprised re the raccoons, they're a great display animal, usually active and interesting to watch -I'd take them over Lions any day of the week. It's a shame you only see them in small collections as they don't fit the conservation-related remit of most large places. Puzzled by the interest in the Llamas though, unless they were allowing public feeding/petting or they were spitting at people.

Personally I find Lions to be generally boring display animals and whilst I like Wolves they have potential to be very inactive and/or hidden away.

 

[Zoovolunteer]

while having a mixed exhibit of domestic/exotic animals does sound rather odd, in the real world that is exactly the situation many wild animals find themselves in. At Wild Place, Bristol Zoos new set up near Bristol, the lemur walk through is entered via a Madagascan village display with goats and guinea fowl for example. The village section also has a lot of information about the projects the zoo is helping fund in Sahamalaza in NW Madagascar.

 

[Not_a_Nautilus]

Dublin Zoo doesn't really have any animals I would personally consider "boring", except for those in the "Family Farm" area. Its popularity kind of baffles me. Kids seem to love cows and sheep, but why, exactly? Even the educational aspect of it seems less worthwhile than that of the rest of the zoo (the signs in there tend to be about beef rather than cows; I just don't care as much about teaching children about Irish agriculture, compared to teaching them about biology or conservation).

As for what other people consider disinteresting, the Waldrapp ibises seem like a top contender. When I hear people mention them at all, it's usually to say how ugly they are. Their (covered) viewing area only becomes popular when it rains.

 

[zooman64]

I completely agree with Not_a_Nautilus. There was a time when I wholeheartedly agreed with the idea of zoos having a pets' corner or small farmyard where domestic animals like sheep, goats and donkeys, could be kept because it is vitally important that children can connect with animals in order to develop a lifelong appreciation of nature, and animals that can be patted or stroked have a distinct advantage with this. However (and it's a very BIG however) I now feel that there are so many city farms, rare breed centres, children's zoos, etc., all over the country that concentrate almost exclusively on domestic breeds, that there is NO need for zoos to keep domestic animals any longer. If the public is to take zoos seriously as captive breeding centres for endangered species, then zoos have GOT to change their act. They need to phase out domestic animals (all credit to Marwell for doing precisely that); phase out the common "stocking fillers" like red-necked/Bennett's wallabies, mara, llamas, squirrel monkeys, domestic Bactrian camels, Burmese pythons, green iguanas, short-clawed otters, and, yes, meerkats (as if that'll happen); get rid of model dinosaurs; and get rid of cheap non-animal "entertainments" like crazy golf and fairground rides. All those empty meerkat enclosures could be used for ring-tailed mongooses, narrow-striped mongooses and black-footed ferrets. Short-clawed otters can be replaced by Brazilian giant otter or one of the other, even less frequently seen, species. As for red-necked wallabies: there are so many other wallaby species. I'm aware Australia doesn't allow the export of its native fauna, but several species are established in captivity elsewhere in the world, albeit in relatively small numbers, but zoos (knowing the public just want wallabies and don't care as to species) always seem to go for the most easily obtained. Take the much derided Australian setup on the former Mappin Terraces at London Zoo. It's quite a nice exhibit, and really does look like a section of the Australian outback. But then the authorities at London Zoo choose to fill this elaborate exhibit with two of the commonest species imaginable, and in no need of captive breeding as an aid to survival - emus and red-necked wallabies. Crazy.

 

[TheOnlineZoo]

... there is NO need for zoos to keep domestic animals any longer.

I respectfully disagree. My kids love animals, and when they were younger, their favorite part of any zoo was the children's area where they could actually touch something, even if it was just another pygmy goat.

Kids learn with all five sense, and touch is probably the most important. Since we would probably all agree that letting kids touch any endangered animal would be foolish, I believe there is a real need to have domestic animals to fill this void.

If the public is to take zoos seriously as captive breeding centres for endangered species, then zoos have GOT to change their act.

Zoos have many roles to fill; caring for endangered species is just one of them.

Just my opinion...

 

[canaryboy]

I think zoos should keep domestic animals because they are just fun for kids! What's wrong with that. And remember children visiting city zoos, it may be the only time they'll see cows ad goats etc. It's fun and if the animals are kept properly, why not? Remember kids get interested in animals from seeing monkeys in the trees or from seeing a cow in a farm. And I don't think pigs are BORING!

 

[lamna]

Domestic animals are still part of the animal kingdom, getting rid of them would be like getting rid of vegetables and herbs in a botanical garden.

Urban Farms, Rare Breed Centres and so forth are good, but they tend to focus on native animals. I doubt I've ever get to see Ankole-Watusi Cattle, Cameroon Sheep, Camels, Yaks, Reindeer, Kunekune pigs, etc if Zoo did not keep them.

 

[TheMightyOrca]

and get rid of cheap non-animal "entertainments" like crazy golf and fairground rides.

In all fairness, many zoos are nonprofit and they rely heavily on money from extra things like restaurants, gift shops, and little activities.

Anyway. A lot of the common animals in zoos are the most popular animals. They're often the ones drawing in the crowds, so I can't complain too much. But it would be nice to see some more obscure animals.

I'm not too big on domestic animals, buuuut maybe kids do gain something from getting to interact with animal species other than their pets, so I won't complain.

Personally the only zoo animals I find "boring" are the ones I can see regularly in the wild. Well, okay, I live in an urban area, but I see white-tailed deer running around pretty frequently. Sometimes in large groups! Hard to get excited over seeing one in a zoo.

But presentation is a factor too. An interesting exhibit where the animal has stuff to do is always fun, even when it's a common zoo animal. And I will never get bored of tigers!

 

[Zoovolunteer]

As far as domestic animals are concerned, I think it should be possible to better integrate them with the rest of the collection. Whatever the ideal, in practise most endangered species live in close proximity to encroaching farms and villages, and interactions with domestic livestock are major causes of problems, whether by competition for food, cross-infection, or outright predation (e.g. wolves/ cattle in the US, lions/ leopards in Africa). I think the new lemur exhibit at Brostol zoos Wildplace site is a good start - you enter the lemur walkthrough via a replica Malagasy village, with pigmy goats and guineafowl running around, and information about the people of Madagascar and what the zoo is doing for environmental education as well. That way, both the childrens desire to come into close contact with animals and conservation are both served.

 

[elefante]

As far as domestic animals are concerned, I think it should be possible to better integrate them with the rest of the collection. Whatever the ideal, in practise most endangered species live in close proximity to encroaching farms and villages, and interactions with domestic livestock are major causes of problems, whether by competition for food, cross-infection, or outright predation (e.g. wolves/ cattle in the US, lions/ leopards in Africa). I think the new lemur exhibit at Brostol zoos Wildplace site is a good start - you enter the lemur walkthrough via a replica Malagasy village, with pigmy goats and guineafowl running around, and information about the people of Madagascar and what the zoo is doing for environmental education as well. That way, both the childrens desire to come into close contact with animals and conservation are both served.

There was a discussion about this at one point. I could see it being interesting to integrate domestic animals into a an exhibit complex, although I'm not so sure about the idea of mixing domestics with wild animals, even though the ankole cattle in Disney's Animal Kingdom Kilimanjaro Safaris do look interesting.

 

[tschandler71]

Birmingham's Children's Zoo/Alabama Wilds does this. It is farm that transitions into an Alabama "backyard" with mostly smaller local animals - Raccon, Beaver, Otter, Bald Eagle, Skunk, Bobcat, Beaver, and Foxes. Birmingham just received two bear cubs that will be part of the expansion of Alabama Wilds that will involve Black Bear, Whitetail Deer, Cougar, and moving the Alligators to this side of the zoo.