Bronx Zoo Bronx Zoo review

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

ZooLover4Life

Well-Known Member
I can't for the life of me understand why this zoo is considered so great. Central park zoo is WAY better. I like the beardsley zoo MUCH better! Even the forest park zoo in springfield, ma is way more fun and that is the tiniest of the tiny! Best zoo in northeast in my opinion is Southwick zoo.

Pet peeves for Bronx Zoo:

1)WAY too much walking. I swear you walk a mile before the first animal. Too much space between exhibits. Southwick zoo is a big zoo, but does it right. Not like this. Really insane and I'm someone who enjoys exercise. I like doing laps around a zoo and coming back to see animals again!

2)Too many animals behind glass. No smell/sound. It's not the same thing.

3)You can BARELY see most of the animals. Horrible exhibits that are way too big and terribly designed. You can't get near any of the animals. 20 foot moat and bushes blocking views. I have no clue who designed these habitats, but they don't seem to forget it's for a zoo. And the animals don't seem any happier than in a normal sized exhibit anyway.
You need a pair of binoculars

4)Way too expensive and crowded.

Honestly, I'd rather just go for a FREE walk in the park and look at squirrels. I hate this zoo. I have no clue how anyone could call this world class. I could go on and on!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's why it's great that zoos aren't all the same, clearly not everyone has the same taste in zoos. Although I would like to say that this is not so much a review as it is a rant.
 
ZooLover4Life said:
I can't for the life of me understand why this zoo is considered so great. Central park zoo is WAY better. I like the beardsley zoo MUCH better! Even the forest park zoo in springfield, ma is way more fun and that is the tiniest of the tiny! Best zoo in northeast in my opinion is Southwick zoo.

Pet peeves for Bronx Zoo:

1)WAY too much walking. I swear you walk a mile before the first animal. Too much space between exhibits. Southwick zoo is a big zoo, but does it right. Not like this. Really insane and I'm someone who enjoys exercise. I like doing laps around a zoo and coming back to see animals again!

2)Too many animals behind glass. No smell/sound. It's not the same thing.

3)You can BARELY see most of the animals. Horrible exhibits that are way too big and terribly designed. You can't get near any of the animals. 20 foot moat and bushes blocking views. I have no clue who designed these habitats, but they don't seem to forget it's for a zoo. And the animals don't seem any happier than in a normal sized exhibit anyway.
You need a pair of binoculars

4)Way too expensive and crowded.

Honestly, I'd rather just go for a FREE walk in the park and look at squirrels. I hate this zoo. I have no clue how anyone could call this world class. I could go on and on!
Click to expand...

You have to be kidding. This kind of statement does not deserve a response, but I will give one. The zoos you listed are all average to subpar.

1) The setting of this zoo is amazing. It is the last large forest in New york city. It gives the zoo and its exhibits so much character.

2) Jungleworld, Congo, Himalayan Highlands, Wild Asia, Madagascar and many other exhibits have exhibits not behind glass. What do you expect chain link fence. For many of the animals such as reptiles and birds glass is a must for any ideal viewing. All major zoos make use of glass viewing panels.

3) They are wild animals if they want to hide they will and they will reveal themselves when they choose so. Most of the exhibits are through glass or mesh anyway. Very few are across moats. So If you dont like glass or moats, how should we view the animals, through bars?

4) This is your only valid concern. It gets crowded, but only in a few places. These are Congo, Madagascar and Tiger Mountain. The rest of the zoo, may have a crowd but is not unbearable. The zoo is expensive, I will admit that but it will always be more than the local zoos you listed.

So I doubt anyone on zoochat would call this a bad zoo. Firstly most of your points made no sense. Secondly you seem not to understand the modern zoo. Animals have space to roam and get away from the people. We no longer build cages, instead opting for naturalistic exhibits. I have never visited Southwicks, but would say it is not AZA accredited. From what I have heard, it is a basic space for both vistors and animals. Nothing wrong with that, just no where near the best zoos.
 
uszoo said:
You have to be kidding. This kind of statement does not deserve a response, but I will give one. The zoos you listed are all average to subpar.

1) The setting of this zoo is amazing. It is the last large forest in New york city. It gives the zoo and its exhibits so much character.

2) Jungleworld, Congo, Himalayan Highlands, Wild Asia, Madagascar and many other exhibits have exhibits not behind glass. What do you expect chain link fence. For many of the animals such as reptiles and birds glass is a must for any ideal viewing. All major zoos make use of glass viewing panels.

3) They are wild animals if they want to hide they will and they will reveal themselves when they choose so. Most of the exhibits are through glass or mesh anyway. Very few are across moats. So If you dont like glass or moats, how should we view the animals, through bars?

4) This is your only valid concern. It gets crowded, but only in a few places. These are Congo, Madagascar and Tiger Mountain. The rest of the zoo, may have a crowd but is not unbearable. The zoo is expensive, I will admit that but it will always be more than the local zoos you listed.

So I doubt anyone on zoochat would call this a bad zoo. Firstly most of your points made no sense. Secondly you seem not to understand the modern zoo. Animals have space to roam and get away from the people. We no longer build cages, instead opting for naturalistic exhibits. I have never visited Southwicks, but would say it is not AZA accredited. From what I have heard, it is a basic space for both vistors and animals. Nothing wrong with that, just no where near the best zoos.
Click to expand...
Southwick has MUCH bigger exhibits for it's animals than the Beardsely Zoo, which is aza acredited. If you've been to both than you'd know this.

There's nothing wrong with viewing through fence.

Here's an example of a great tiger exhibit at southwick
Here's a great exhibit First there's a moat where you can actually see the tigers. Well designed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWvXmK8BFHU
Then you walk across and see them through a fence on the side. They love to walk along that fence. You can get within a few of the tiger, yet they have a lot of room to roam. Perfectly designed exhibit. It's also very scenic with a waterfall.
Fence portion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbBo5r1HZxk

1 million times better than bronx zoo where you are stuck looking through glass at one of the few exhibits that you can get close. It's all about making it appear less captive than having "bars". Captivity is captivity. They're animals. Not humans with a sense of freedom or and understanding of difference between fence and glass.

Yes southwick has "naturalistic" setting where you can actually see the animals. Oh and animals at bronx zoo did not seem any "happier"

Go on yelp and you will also see people saying the exact same thing I said about the bronx zoo. It's a big disappointment. You will also see nutcases talking about no animals should be kept in captivity(get rid of your dogs/cats!), animals looked miserable blah blah. They should try the wild where the animals starve to death and get eaten alive on a daily basis. It's not a disney movie. Nothing nice about "nature" or slaughter houses for that matter where we also keep animals for our enjoyment(meat is not necessary for human survival). Hunting animals is also legal so there's so much hypocrisy that its' laughable. If animals are kept in captivity they should be given an enclosure that is not so large so that people can actually see them. No reason to make people walk miles between exhibits either. The zoo appears so large because of how big in acreage is rather than number of animals. It's spread out.
 
Last edited:
Moving this to the correct part of the forum.
 
Oh and love the full on attack mode about making no sense. The zoo has a TON of walking in between exhibits with bad routes and it's very difficult to see the animals. It's also overpriced. It's very similiar to san diego zoo, which is another disappointment. No shade from trees, those stupid buses making all kinds of noise and pollution, and the entire zoo is on a steep hill. Those issues on top of a huge ticket price to get in.
Central park zoo, which is also aza acredited does not have these issues. Neither does southwick zoo(large), beardsley(small), RWP zoo(medium size)

My opinion is not alone of people who regularly visit zoos. I'm not saying keep them in tiny little cages where they can't move. You can see from the videos that is not the case at southwick,
 
ZooLover4Life- I'd like to add my comments on your thoughts, as I have visited the Bronx and many other zoos that you have gone to.
1. There is a lot of walking involved, and coming from someone who hikes, I often find myself with sore feet after a visit to the Bronx. However, I wouldn't say it's a mile before you reach the first animal. I personally enjoy the walking.
2. I can understand how you enjoy the full experience of smelling/hearing/etc animals through a fence or moat. IMO, glass offers the clearest viewing, and if an animal comes up to the glass, you can truly appreciate it, as it is very close to you.
3. I disagree. Many exhibits are well-designed (CGF being the most obvious) and are world-class. Often, viewing the animal depends on the animal's cooperation as well, and if an animal chooses to be in an area where they aren't viewed as easily, tough luck. On your comments about Southwick's cat exhibits versus the Bronx's, I found the cats far away and not easily viewable on my trip to Southwick's. I also fail to see how you think animals are less happy in large exhibits. Mentally stimulating them is important as well. Fortunately, the Bronx enriches their animals regularly.
4. Trips to the Bronx are indeed expensive, and it is often crowded. However, both of these should be expected when visiting a popular and high-quality zoo.
Bronx has both top-notch enclosures (gorillas) and a few low-quality (polar bear). The same goes for Southwick's (elk is good, aldabra tortoise isn't) and the other smaller Northeast zoos. In addition, just because Southwick's has large enclosures doesn't mean the animals receive better care than they do at the Bronx. I'm not saying that Southwick's is awful to their animals, but there's a reason AZA-accreditation is accredited to certain zoos.
As Ituri states, visiting different zoos is great to compare differences and enjoy the best that both have to offer.
 
Last edited:
Oh and I've been to southwick countless times. Just swing back around if you miss the tigers first time through. I've never missed seeing the tigers there ever. Lions sleep 20+hours a day and are less active so they can be a little mia at any zoo. I still see them, but they're asleep most times.

I don't think animals are LESS happy in larger exhibits. I simply don't think they care. Of course I'm not talking about a cage where they can barely move. I'm talking about ENORMOUS exhibits vs normal sized.Captivity is captivity. Herbivores are without a doubt happier in a zoo environment than in the wild.(they can relax)

Of course I'm not talking about a cage where they can barely move. I'm talking about ENORMOUS exhibits vs normal sized.
 
BeardsleyZooFan said:
ZooLover4Life- I try to respect everyone's opinion, and while some of your criticisms are valid, there is no need for you to flip out at people who do not share your viewpoint. I'd like to add my comments on your thoughts, as I have visited the Bronx and many other zoos that you have gone to.
. On your comments about Southwick's cat exhibits versus the Bronx's, I found the cats far away and not easily viewable on my trip to Southwick's. I also fail to see how you think animals are less happy in large exhibits.

Bronx has both top-notch enclosures (gorillas) and a few low-quality (polar bear). The same goes for Southwick's (elk is good, aldabra tortoise isn't) and the other smaller Northeast zoos. In addition, just because Southwick's has large enclosures doesn't mean the animals receive better care than they do at the Bronx. I'm not saying that Southwick's is awful to their animals, but there's a reason AZA-accreditation is accredited to certain zoos.
Click to expand...
Why does southwick not have aza-accreditation? It's very strange. I like beardsley zoo. It's the zoo I visit most often due to proximity. I do like southwick more than Beardsley. No comparison, but Beardsley is still a cute small zoo. Much better than the Bronx zoo. I'm assuming you've been there considering your name.

They have 3 cage exhibits that are for amur tiger, lynx, and some type of leopard. I don't find them too small, though they're definitely not naturalistic like southwick zoo. These exhibits at beardsley as you know are ALL smaller than the cat exhibits at southwick. You can get within feet of the amur tiger which I love. The exhibits at southwick are much larger and naturalistic, but at the same time allow you to get close to the animals, unlike the bronx zoo. If that's something you value, then the choice is easy.

If you like ultra long walks with huge exhibits where you can barely see most of the animals with large crowds and very high prices than you'll love the bronx zoo. That's the facts. Not opinion.

Also, when was last time you were at Southwick? It's changed drastically from a long time ago.
 
Years ago, while I was working at the Bronx Zoo, I was visiting another well known zoo. I wasn't impressed. It was clearly not "my kind of zoo." But I started watching the visitors and I saw families having a good time and realized that although it was not my kind of zoo it was theirs. Since that day I have had similar experiences in many zoos. Small children especially have a hard time at the "better" immersive zoos. The whole zoo community knows it. We do what we can (glass!) but immersion exhibits have limitations
Some people like the experience of a Southwick Zoo better than a Bronx Zoo. Some the other way around. Chacun à son goût

This may, though, be one of those times when we turn to the animals to glean what enclosure offers a better quality of life. The limitation of many small zoos... where visitors can get up close to the animals... is that the animals may not have space for adequate exercise or opportunities for adequate enrichment. I watched the YouTube of the Southwick lion pacing and was not encouraged. Of course, animals may pace due to a variety of reasons--some having nothing to do with present circumstances--but it never announces a happy animal. It is important for the American zoo visitor to always see the animals. But there is more to husbandry than that.
 
Zooplantman said:
Years ago, while I was working at the Bronx Zoo, I was visiting another well known zoo. I wasn't impressed. It was clearly not "my kind of zoo." But I started watching the visitors and I saw families having a good time and realized that although it was not my kind of zoo it was theirs. Since that day I have had similar experiences in many zoos. Small children especially have a hard time at the "better" immersive zoos. The whole zoo community knows it. We do what we can (glass!) but immersion exhibits have limitations
Some people like the experience of a Southwick Zoo better than a Bronx Zoo. Some the other way around. Chacun à son goût

This may, though, be one of those times when we turn to the animals to glean what enclosure offers a better quality of life. The limitation of many small zoos... where visitors can get up close to the animals... is that the animals may not have space for adequate exercise or opportunities for adequate enrichment. I watched the YouTube of the Southwick lion pacing and was not encouraged. Of course, animals may pace due to a variety of reasons--some having nothing to do with present circumstances--but it never announces a happy animal. It is important for the American zoo visitor to always see the animals. But there is more to husbandry than that.
Click to expand...
Let's be honest. Every big cat paces at some point during the day when locked in captivity. Is this a sign of stress? Boredom? They pace no matter the size of the exhibit. Maybe it's this simply how a cat exercises since they would be doing a walk in the wilderness, but they have to turn around since their exhibit is not 50 square miles?

Also, simply being bored is probably a lot better than how many cats have it in the wild. Many are killed by other tigers, starve to death, break a limb and have a slow death. Nature is not kind. They also are serial killers and kill a ton of ungulates. Nature is not nice. Also, they don't have a human mind. They are simple creatures compared to us with no idea about "freedom". These are mostly human concepts. A well fed cat is a happy cat. lol
 
Oh and I don't find glass to be "immersive". If anything, it creates a separation. Almost like looking at a tv screen. Some exhibits glass works though like polar bear underwater portion of central park zoo.
 
Tiger pacing at philly zoo in relatively large enclosure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21ruq_GOZGY
minnesota zoo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJZD4YKKpFE
columbus zoo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptmPm9t-y0
Washington zoo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzM93lL2xyI
St. louis zoo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jULL_VENPcI

This is clearly their behavior to pace. I think drawing a conclusion that this is some kind of severe mental health problem is a little short sighted and is applying human psychology to animals.
 
ZooLover4Life said:
Let's be honest. Every big cat paces at some point during the day when locked in captivity.
l
Click to expand...
Not so.

ZooLover4Life said:
Also, simply being bored is probably a lot better than how many cats have it in the wild. Many are killed by other tigers, starve to death, break a limb and have a slow death. Nature is not kind. They also are serial killers and kill a ton of ungulates. Nature is not nice. Also, they don't have a human mind. They are simple creatures compared to us with no idea about "freedom". These are mostly human concepts. A well fed cat is a happy cat. lol
Click to expand...
True but that's not really to the point of the discussion. You complained that the exhibits at the Bronx Zoo were too large. Are you saying that since the animals are in a zoo they should be fine with what they get as long as you get a good look at them and don't have to walk too far?
 
"Enrichment" for a tiger would be taking one of the elk from his exhibit and letting him tear it apart. Tigers ENJOY killing. Not so good for the elk as they feel pain and fear just like us. How is that fair to the elk? lol The nature of a tiger is not one of kindness. It's a beast. It would tear a person to pieces in a second. Just a bit of reality injected here.
 
Zooplantman said:
Not so.


True but that's not really to the point of the discussion. You complained that the exhibits at the Bronx Zoo were too large. Are you saying that since the animals are in a zoo they should be fine with what they get as long as you get a good look at them and don't have to walk too far?
Click to expand...

They do pace at every zoo. I've seen them pacing at bronx! Did you see the links I posted. There were a ton of other ones as well.

You might as well not have zoos if you're not going to let people see them properly. The animals are there for OUR enjoyment. We are feeding them, taking care of their health, and keeping them in relatively big enclosure, but NOT huge like bronx. Hell put me in a zoo! Free meals and I don't have to work! lol As long as you're not keeping primates/herd animals ALONE or having TINY exhibits then from there it's all about the people's experience. That's why the animals are there in the first place. Anti-zoo people want zoos shut down. They don't care about size of exhibit.
 
ZooLover4Life said:
"Enrichment" for a tiger would be taking one of the elk from his exhibit and letting him tear it apart. Not so good for the elk as they feel pain and fear just like us. How is that fair to the elk? lol The nature of a tiger is not one of kindness. It's a beast. It would tear a person to pieces in a second. Just a bit of reality injected here.
Click to expand...

Ah ZooLover4Life you are so set in your convictions. I have worked in and with zoos around the world for almost 30 years but I shall defer to your opinions. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top