CLOSE these zoos!

Zooplantman

Zooplantman

Well-Known Member
As I read ZooChat reviews of various zoos over the years I am struck by the frequent criticism of inadequate exhibits or out-of -date facilities or other short-comings of one zoo after another.
One gets the impression that on ZooChat, at least for some members, if a facility cannot compete with Sand Diego, the Bronx, or North Carolina then it ought to be shamed and perhaps even done away with.

Most zoos are sadly underfunded. Most locales are in economic distress so neither the government agencies nor local philanthropists will be stepping in to donate the millions of dollars it takes to meet these objections.

So what do you propose?
Close the zoos that cannot be the best?
If so, how many and which ones?
What is your list of zoos that, if they cannot be renovated, should just go?

(I'm just trying to better understand what people are thinking.)
 
Looking forward to this thread. There does seem to be an almost chronic lack of understanding from some quarters that not all zoos ought to be judged on the same standards. Mostly I just ignore it but it must be galling for people from lower-budget, locally-focused zoos to have critics breeze through for two hours basically declaring their work to be sub-par or worthless, without any consideration that they might not actually be who the zoo is aiming to serve.

There are some who only want to ever see the absolute best. That's fine. Just don't go to zoos that never claim to be able to be that, and then savage them for not meeting your unilateral standards. Stick to visiting the places that are more or less known worldwide to be the standouts.
 
Personally I've only ever been to one zoo that I've left quite happy for it to close down immediately - Lubeck - and there were bigger issues there than just the current exhibits - elderly owners and a hidden-away location among them. Otherwise I'd far rather see zoos stay open and have the chance of improvement; even if that means downsizing to free up funds in the short-term.

The simple fact is that if only the very top level of zoo quality were still open, there would not be anything like enough 'spaces' for viable captive populations of most species (many (most?) are already tight) - so all those top zoos would be forced to have virtually identical collections - which would a) be dull and perhaps more importantly b) limit the number of species they could work with for education/conservation.

On a related idea, one of my pet dislikes on this board is when things are lamented for being 'merely' average - as though everything should be above-average. This is ridiculous for two reasons - a) it demonstrates a lack of understanding of how averages work and b) it comes back to this same idea of 'if you can't build the very best you shouldn't bother', which is ultimately self-defeating.

The same applies to the word 'adequate' - if something's 'adequate' then, by definition, that's fine! It may take it out of the running to be top 10, but it's not a problem. If it is a problem then it is not adequate.

Both these last are at least partially semantic, of course.

So yes, broadly I agree with CGSwans - those who only want to see the best are within their rights to simply avoid other zoos. The lower-budget zoos are vital in many ways however, and I for one will support (almost all of) them.



CGSwans said:
Looking forward to this thread. There does seem to be an almost chronic lack of understanding from some quarters that not all zoos ought to be judged on the same standards. Mostly I just ignore it but it must be galling for people from lower-budget, locally-focused zoos to have critics breeze through for two hours basically declaring their work to be sub-par or worthless, without any consideration that they might not actually be who the zoo is aiming to serve.
Click to expand...

There's a fair bit of discussion on here that seems to be based on people's expectations of (say) the exhibit rather than the exhibit itself (which isn't a problem, as long as the people involved realise that's what it is!). The classic is criticism for 'not being very immersive' on exhibits that clearly were never intended to be anything of the sort, which always bugs me. This is a related case - because the big zoos build showy, high-£/$/€ exhibits it's exepcted that smaller places should match that, and they shouldn't be expected to because it's simply not possible (to say nothing of the fact that they can sometimes come up with better for less!).
 
Maguari said:
There's a fair bit of discussion on here that seems to be based on people's expectations of (say) the exhibit rather than the exhibit itself (which isn't a problem, as long as the people involved realise that's what it is!).
Click to expand...

Expectations are very important, as long as they are formed correctly. I have a loose ranking of the zoos I've visited in my head. People would be astonished to learn that I have Halls Gap ahead of Australia Zoo or Werribee in that list. But it's based on the principle that a zoo that has less resources should get more credit for what they do with what it has, than a zoo that has lots of money and, relatively speaking, under achieves with it.

An enclosure I would find very satisfying at Halls Gap I might find totally unacceptable at Melbourne or Taronga. It's about judging each place on its merits. In a word, it's about context. Or, indeed, expectations.

I also wonder if the people who rave about immersive exhibits would support a zoo spending $20m to have one superb animal exhibit that took the visitor on a fantasy adventure to another land, whilst the rest of the zoo rusted away and had animals in dangerous conditions. I, for one, would rather a consistently acceptable standard across the zoo than that.
 
I would much rather see a bad zoo get renovated or bad exhibits get renovated than to be closed outright. Not every zoo can be as good as San Diego or Bronx, but zoos should try to be the best they can using the resources they have.
 
Ok you might allow an exhibit to be satisfactory at a small place that you would not accept at a better place but it's not all relative, there has to be a standard below which it's not good enough whatever the mitigating circumstances, in that case they should close if they can't improve rapidly.
Zoo geeks' opinions of places only being average are just a minority view, just like the 'fed up with meerkats' 'bored with lemur walkthroughs' opinions, zoos would be foolish to be influenced by these opinions, that's not their bread & butter.
 
elefante said:
I would much rather see a bad zoo get renovated or bad exhibits get renovated than to be closed outright. Not every zoo can be as good as San Diego or Bronx, but zoos should try to be the best they can using the resources they have.
Click to expand...

i totally agree you on this topic. As im a big animal lover, i know there's alot more people out there that are the same way. and to close little zoos because they have no big name animals doesn't make sense to close it. I actually like the smaller zoos. less people and you learn more about different species from there docents.
 
OrangePerson said:
Ok you might allow an exhibit to be satisfactory at a small place that you would not accept at a better place but it's not all relative, there has to be a standard below which it's not good enough whatever the mitigating circumstances, in that case they should close if they can't improve rapidly.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! However, there's a difference between enclosures that are aesthetically displeasing and those that have welfare issues. The latter must always be replaced or vacated as a matter of urgency. The former is a subjective problem.

I do get frustrated when the almost inevitable prescription is for bulldozers and tens of millions of dollars. As if this is a) always possible and b) necessarily the best use of that community's resources.
 
The type of animals that a zoo exhibits shouldn't really be a reason to criticize. I won't give a black bear, pronghorn, or bison exhibit much more than a passing glance simply because I can see those in the wild where I live. However, I do enjoy Bear Country USA, for example, and that one has North American animals on display. The only things that are sort of exotic to me there are reindeer and Dall sheep. However, I don't criticize that establishment and don't think it's a bad place. I also don't think aesthetics should be that much of an issue. For example, (and I know I always talk about this zoo all the time) Omaha's hoofstock exhibits are dated. However, the animals seem to be living pretty well so I don't think those exhibits should be as much of a priority to renovate than say the Cat Complex. If animal welfare is concerned and the zoo doesn't have the funds to reonavate the outdated exhibit, than it needs to be closed.
 
I applaud improvement of any type. I mean Birmingham Dallas and San Diego have opened new Elephant exhibits in the past 18 months. Who would have ever thought that relative newcomer to the Zoo game Dallas and Birmingham a facility that lost AZA accreditation a decade ago would build such impressive facilities such as Giants and Trails while San Diego would build the abomination that is Elephant Odyssey?
 
I was recently at the Central Florida Zoo and it had donor's names on there board walks and I saw two engravings for Walt Disney World so I assume that some larger zoos help out smaller zoos (Having the amount of money Disney has that probally helped too)
Many small zoos become specialty zoos, cosley zoo and phillips park zoo are both smaller zoos that focus on North American animals because they can not compete with Brookfield and Lincoln Park. I like zoos getting different species but Brookfield has not had any major new species added to the zoo since Mexican Grey Wolves in 2004 (I may be wrong) and has lost spectacled bears, hippos, Ibex, congo buffalo, African elephant, many more because for a zoo with more than 2.3 million visitors a year and rising attendance they are allways low on money (I heard that the next exhibit will be for African Elephants but probally not open till 2015). But smaller zoo do not feel they have to build the best exhibit ever and they can make new exhibits and ad species faster.
 
tschandler71 said:
I applaud improvement of any type. I mean Birmingham Dallas and San Diego have opened new Elephant exhibits in the past 18 months. Who would have ever thought that relative newcomer to the Zoo game Dallas and Birmingham a facility that lost AZA accreditation a decade ago would build such impressive facilities such as Giants and Trails while San Diego would build the abomination that is Elephant Odyssey?
Click to expand...

Well first off, San Diego's exhibit opened about 3 years ago, not 18 months ago. Second, EO isn't an abomination. Most of the exhibits are adequate, and this very thread itself states adequate enclosures are perfectly acceptable. EO just didn't live up to what people thought it would be.
 
Thankfully the two horrendous zoos in my state of Arizona that needed to be closed have both been closed - Payson Zoo and Douglas Wildlife Zoo. I am sure there are others just as bad that need to be shut down in other states. Not all zoos can be mega zoos and I have no problem with small zoos with nice low budget exhibits that utilize existing landscape (Wildlife West in New Mexico is a great example). But some zoos are so bad that closing is the best option. The conditions are so bad that it proves the owners do not really care about animals or they would never allow it. Thankfully, the public is less tolerant of these and they are closing, just like the two Arizona facilities I mentioned.
 
This week I should tick off my 180th zoo/aquarium and if I had the power I might only shut down 2-3 out of the 180 that I've seen. I generally stick to AZA-accredited zoos and thus the standards are higher than non-accredited facilities, and Seaside Aquarium in Oregon and perhaps Cougar Mountain Zoo in Washington spring to mind as a zoo and an aquarium that would face the axe. Both are non-accredited by AZA and it shows!

Since I have contributed a tremendous number of reviews to this forum I feel as if I have "lightened up" over the years and there have been numerous comments on my most recent road trip thread (both public and private) that all seem to think that I'm taking it a little easier on the smaller zoos. I even posted a long response saying that since I have had two children I value kiddie sections a lot more than in the past and I also have been much more understanding when it comes to placing value in tiny, community-driven zoos. It is actually fun to bang off a zoo in 2 hours and my whole family is happy doing that rather than dragging them through a 6-7 hour zoo when things eventually unravel and folks just want to leave.

On the other hand, it is discouraing to still see awful enclosures like Little Rock Zoo's 80 year-old monkey cages or the atrocious bear pits at that same zoo. If the bears were all sent away to better homes I know that the zoo would not skip a beat in terms of attendance. It costs a fortune to build a great bear exhibit in the modern world and so if a small-town zoo is forced to leave its bears in cement grottoes then send them away! The food bill will go down, perhaps employee costs will go down, and families won't stand there feeling sorry for the bruins. Most importantly the decision will be about the welfare of the animals, something Calgary Zoo knows all about as it is planning to send its 4 Asian elephants away from the Arctic-like winters in that city.

Criticism works. Enough critics have been hammering away at elephant enclosures in American zoos and sure enough there are now at least 15 or more exhibits for elephants that are 2 acres in size or larger and featuring small herds of the animals. The change has been remarkable and it seems as if once or twice a year a major elephant exhibit has opened up somewhere. The zoos with a couple of elephants on half an acre of land need to either raise the funds for an expanded exhibit or send the pachyderms away and that is a wonderful thing. Detroit Zoo sent away its elephants (2005?) and they have broken their all-time attendance record at least 5 times since then so losing the elephants actually saved them money in keeper costs and food bills. I'm not sure what the same impact would be on a small-town zoo that has sent away its elephants, and Jackson Zoo is a good example but that zoo has seen declining attendance for years anyway.

I feel as if I've already covered a few topics in my response, but my short answer would be that just about every single zoo and aquarium that I have ever visited is one that I would NOT close. However, that does not mean that there aren't loads of outdated exhibits that need to be modernized. Even though I've found a soft spot for small zoos over the years I still feel that there are too many ZooChatters that blindly accept what is put in front of them. If most zoos lock up their animals into tiny holding areas for 16 hours a day the least they can do is have an excellent habitat for them to utilize for the remaining 8 hours.
 
CLOSE this zoo, PLEASE!

I realize that when it comes to exhibits all zoos can and should improve. There is no perfect zoo, however, there is one place, I would love to see shut and bulldozed. Wild Wilderness Safari, in Gentry Arkansas.
First off, I must say, hoofstock does not look that bad, afterall they do have the run of the place. There is a pretty waterhole.
My qualms are with how the predators are displayed. Lions, Tigers and Bears have dusty paddocks, surrounded with high chain link fencing. Displays are plain at best, no stimulation, save for a log and maybe a shack for shelter.
Smaller predators, such as leopards to foxes are kept in tiny cubicle sized cages, with a ledge for the animal to lie on.
The worst off are the poor primates. Currently, (from what I''ve seen in others recent photographs) a lone baboon pines away in an antique circus wagon!
Bad, bad rumors and stories have circulated about this place for decades. Gaurs escaping, and starving tiger cubs are among them! I've personally seen idoits feed animals lit cigarettes! I've also witnessed a Himyalan Languar, which had gotten loose in the petting area, bite a toddler!
And don't get me started on that house of horrors, called the winter barn. I saw this hell over twenty years ago. It was dark, close and dirty! The giraffe was crammed in the along with monkies and lemurs stuffed into cages made for rabbits! I pray its gone, but I'm not certain.
Gads! and this place gets good reviews??
The bad thing Wild Wilderness Safari is not a zoo, it is the worst of roadside attractions. I do not know just who or what allows this place to go on, but --- personally I would like to see them jailed in one of their leopard cages!
Sorry about being flip. I realize, a lot of people on this thread are zoo lovers and professionals. I am one too, and I hope I have not insulted anyone. In the end, I must ask, where are the laws to protect both the public and the animals? Where's Animal Control??
If I have any voice at all, I beg, for anyone with the stomach and the strength to go and inspect this place, and CLOSE IT!
Thank you for allowing for me to vent!
 
cervicapra said:
I realize that when it comes to exhibits all zoos can and should improve. There is no perfect zoo, however, there is one place, I would love to see shut and bulldozed. Wild Wilderness Safari, in Gentry Arkansas.
First off, I must say, hoofstock does not look that bad, afterall they do have the run of the place. There is a pretty waterhole.
My qualms are with how the predators are displayed. Lions, Tigers and Bears have dusty paddocks, surrounded with high chain link fencing. Displays are plain at best, no stimulation, save for a log and maybe a shack for shelter.
Smaller predators, such as leopards to foxes are kept in tiny cubicle sized cages, with a ledge for the animal to lie on.
The worst off are the poor primates. Currently, (from what I''ve seen in others recent photographs) a lone baboon pines away in an antique circus wagon!
Bad, bad rumors and stories have circulated about this place for decades. Gaurs escaping, and starving tiger cubs are among them! I've personally seen idoits feed animals lit cigarettes! I've also witnessed a Himyalan Languar, which had gotten loose in the petting area, bite a toddler!
And don't get me started on that house of horrors, called the winter barn. I saw this hell over twenty years ago. It was dark, close and dirty! The giraffe was crammed in the along with monkies and lemurs stuffed into cages made for rabbits! I pray its gone, but I'm not certain.
Gads! and this place gets good reviews??
The bad thing Wild Wilderness Safari is not a zoo, it is the worst of roadside attractions. I do not know just who or what allows this place to go on, but --- personally I would like to see them jailed in one of their leopard cages!
Sorry about being flip. I realize, a lot of people on this thread are zoo lovers and professionals. I am one too, and I hope I have not insulted anyone. In the end, I must ask, where are the laws to protect both the public and the animals? Where's Animal Control??
If I have any voice at all, I beg, for anyone with the stomach and the strength to go and inspect this place, and CLOSE IT!
Thank you for allowing for me to vent!
Click to expand...

There are a lot of those types of zoos that should close down.
 
cervicapra said:
I realize that when it comes to exhibits all zoos can and should improve. There is no perfect zoo, however, there is one place, I would love to see shut and bulldozed. Wild Wilderness Safari, in Gentry Arkansas.
First off, I must say, hoofstock does not look that bad, afterall they do have the run of the place. There is a pretty waterhole.
My qualms are with how the predators are displayed. Lions, Tigers and Bears have dusty paddocks, surrounded with high chain link fencing. Displays are plain at best, no stimulation, save for a log and maybe a shack for shelter.
Smaller predators, such as leopards to foxes are kept in tiny cubicle sized cages, with a ledge for the animal to lie on.
The worst off are the poor primates. Currently, (from what I''ve seen in others recent photographs) a lone baboon pines away in an antique circus wagon!
Bad, bad rumors and stories have circulated about this place for decades. Gaurs escaping, and starving tiger cubs are among them! I've personally seen idoits feed animals lit cigarettes! I've also witnessed a Himyalan Languar, which had gotten loose in the petting area, bite a toddler!
And don't get me started on that house of horrors, called the winter barn. I saw this hell over twenty years ago. It was dark, close and dirty! The giraffe was crammed in the along with monkies and lemurs stuffed into cages made for rabbits! I pray its gone, but I'm not certain.
Gads! and this place gets good reviews??
The bad thing Wild Wilderness Safari is not a zoo, it is the worst of roadside attractions. I do not know just who or what allows this place to go on, but --- personally I would like to see them jailed in one of their leopard cages!
Sorry about being flip. I realize, a lot of people on this thread are zoo lovers and professionals. I am one too, and I hope I have not insulted anyone. In the end, I must ask, where are the laws to protect both the public and the animals? Where's Animal Control??
If I have any voice at all, I beg, for anyone with the stomach and the strength to go and inspect this place, and CLOSE IT!
Thank you for allowing for me to vent!
Click to expand...

Should be a regulation against them with the exception of reptiles and hoofstock. Hoofstock aren't that more difficult to care for than goats or cattle.
 
Having worked on a number of exhibits with low-budget zoos, it always amazes me that people are so fast to criticise those projects without knowing the budget, motivations, and design constraints that effected the design of the exhibit. Many times there are so many political, financial, and animal welfare factors that are at play with each project that a lot of the time the end result is the "best they could do with what they were given". It is unfortunate I know, but sometimes it is reality.

That being said I have much more appreciation for low-budget zoos that build adequate enclosures than large high-budget zoos that spend tens of millions on visitor experience and whose animal spaces are barely adequate.

But back to the question, if a zoo has a history of doing the best they can with what they have and meets the animals basic needs then of course it should stay open. If not, it needs to close or find someone who can give them the leadership they need to make tough decisions on collection, future renovations, ect. Of course places like this probably don't have a say whether they close or not because if conditions are that bad I doubt they would have enough of an attendance base to provide them with the revenue they would need to say open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top