Do you have a zoo that is not your favorite because it doesn't have your favorite animal?

Emanuel Theodorus

Emanuel Theodorus

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
I think I've mentioned this before, a zoo with no Nile Hippos (or at the very least Pygmy Hippos) can never truly be my favorite because it just feels like something is missing when I visited that zoo, no matter how good the other exhibits are or if they're considered the best of the best. So far all of the zoos I visited have hippos (either Nile or Pygmy), so there's still some contentions here and there. But I feel like this will apply to Columbus, Indianapolis, or other non-hippo zoos if I ever visited them.

Do you have any personal bias for an animal that if a zoo doesn't have it, it just doesn't fit as your personal favorite?
 
Emanuel Theodorus said:
So far all of the zoos I visited have hippos
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how many zoos have you visited? Have you ever avoided visiting a zoo because it didn’t have hippos, and have you ever gone out of your way to visit a zoo because it did have them? In the US, hippos aren’t too common compared to other big popular animals (like giraffes, elephants, and rhinos), so I am surprised you’ve never been to a zoo without them before.
 
ZooElephantsMan said:
Out of curiosity, how many zoos have you visited? Have you ever avoided visiting a zoo because it didn’t have hippos, and have you ever gone out of your way to visit a zoo because it did have them? In the US, hippos aren’t too common compared to other big popular animals (like giraffes, elephants, and rhinos), so I am surprised you’ve never been to a zoo without them before.
Click to expand...

I'm from Indonesia, which means visiting zoos from other countries is generally really rare. Many zoos in Indonesia generally have Nile Hippos though, such as Ragunan, Taman Safari, and Batu. Though I'm actually kinda wrong, I actually visited Bali Zoo which doesn't have hippos, but that zoo is not my favorite not only from that but also many reasons as well.

I never gone out of way to visit a zoo that has hippos, but closest I think is Berlin Zoo which I remember having a beautiful hippo house that I really wanna see. The other major zoos I've seen are Copenhagen, Singapore, and Guangzhou, and all of them have hippos.
 
I wouldn't say that's the case with species, but it is the case with some higher taxa. I wouldn't call a zoo my favorite if it didn't have a decent bird collection, for instance. There aren't any specific species of birds that I feel zoos must include, but unless a zoo has a decent bird collection (at least 10-20 species), then there's no way it'll be my favorite zoo. I have visited three zoos in which the lack of birds was a reason they aren't ranked higher on my zoo rankings. While there are some taxa I prefer over others, generally what I'm looking for in zoos is a diverse, well-rounded collection exhibited. I don't care too much about fish and inverts, so don't necessarily care or notice how many of these a zoo has, but with birds, reptiles, and mammals, I feel all zoos (unless it's a specialist facility- as those can be cool for how well they focus on a specific taxa) should be striving for a fairly well-rounded collection, and some of the zoos I ranked the highest succeed greatly at doing this. Other than birds, the main taxa I've seen zoos ranking suffer for lacking are reptiles and ungulates, as these are the other taxa that seem to be omitted entirely or only represented by a few species in zoos I've visited.
 
I usually look at overall animal welfare and enclosure design as opposed to what species are there.

Two of my local zoos, Franklin Park and Stone, while owned and operated by the same organization, have their ups and downs. Franklin Park has more of the big ticket species, but I like the enclosure designs at Stone a fair bit more. They both take pretty good care of the animals regardless imho.
 
I used to not like zoos that didn't have crocodiles, but nowadays I've learnt that it's not an absolute requisite, as my taste in animals has improved. Plus, some of my favourite zoos, like Wellington's, don't have them. However, while this may not have to do with this thread, I'm personally put off by zoos that have an extremely limited, or non-existent, bird collection (unless it has a specific focus, like Parc des Felins or Crocodiles of the World). Dublin Zoo, for example, strikes me as such, especially seeing how they used to have a rather good bird house now turned into an educational black hole. While I do prefer zoos have a rounded collection, with at least a few species of each class, I prefer a reptile-less zoo to a bird-less zoo.
 
My favourite zoos are ones with expansive collections that cover a lot of ground (Chester and Berlin), zoos that have stunning exhibittry (Zurich) or zoos that have a completely unique feel from anything else (Highland Wildlife Park)... I wouldn't say a zoo needs to have a specific type of animal to be my favourite. My favourite animal are penguins which are extremely common in the first place so I can do without a zoo having them.

My favourite zoo is Chester which does have penguins... And my personal favourite species are Humboldt which is also what they have! That also does happen to be the most commonly kept species around here anyway...

I'm not sure why they are my favourite species, probably my general love of penguins combined with that connection that my home zoo always had that species in particular so there is a bit of an emotional connection perhaps. My avatar on ZooChat had been a Humboldt penguin for over 5 years until recently!
 
IDK if I have a favorite animal. Any number of species that zoos generally don't have but may appear in the odd collection can grab my attention. Amazing exhibitry also goes a long way for me if a zoo lacks a large species list.

I will say, I have several zoos that I've grown to intensely dislike and even stop visiting because they are incredibly unimaginative, cheesy, and boring. Some promote borderline public ignorance, such as Cincinnati with their hippos. Stuff like that sucks the life out of a zoo for me.
 
Just because a zoo lacks a particular species, there is zero reason it cannot be held high in my estimations.

I wouldn't say I have a point-blank favourite animal, and were I to draw up a list of (say) a potential top five it would doubtless change every time I was asked :p

However, as a general thought experiment.... if asked at precisely this second in time I would say that the following are all solid contenders:

  • Tuatara
  • Okapi
  • Tawny Owl
  • Marbled Polecat
  • Eider Duck

Similarly, my list of favorite zoos is always in flux a little, but if asked at this precise moment, my favorite zoos (as opposed to those I think are the best zoos) are as follows:

  • Prague - holds none of above species
  • Tierpark Berlin - holds none of above species
  • Chester - holds Okapi and Tuatara
  • Zoo Berlin - holds Eider, Okapi and Tuatara
  • Highland Wildlife Park - holds Tawny Owl

So, my two favorite zoos hold *none* of my favorite species, and one species occurs nowhere in my top 5 zoos.
 
And that is why having, thinking, or worrying about any listings is pointless, as the next day we change our minds. We are fickle creatures.
 
groundskeeper24 said:
IDK if I have a favorite animal. Any number of species that zoos generally don't have but may appear in the odd collection can grab my attention. Amazing exhibitry also goes a long way for me if a zoo lacks a large species list.

I will say, I have several zoos that I've grown to intensely dislike and even stop visiting because they are incredibly unimaginative, cheesy, and boring. Some promote borderline public ignorance, such as Cincinnati with their hippos. Stuff like that sucks the life out of a zoo for me.
Click to expand...

I kinda wanna see the other examples of that kind of zoos outside of Cincinnati.
 
Emanuel Theodorus said:
I think I've mentioned this before, a zoo with no Nile Hippos (or at the very least Pygmy Hippos) can never truly be my favorite because it just feels like something is missing when I visited that zoo, no matter how good the other exhibits are or if they're considered the best of the best. So far all of the zoos I visited have hippos (either Nile or Pygmy), so there's still some contentions here and there. But I feel like this will apply to Columbus, Indianapolis, or other non-hippo zoos if I ever visited them.

Do you have any personal bias for an animal that if a zoo doesn't have it, it just doesn't fit as your personal favorite?
Click to expand...
For me...it is snow leopards. Being autistic I am VERY obsessed with them. I do not like zoos without them!.
 
I'm actually starting to move in the opposite direction.

I used to be (and, to a degree, still am) very taken with the idea of seeing new species and keeping my lists and all that good stuff that folks on here talk about so much. That being said, I'm also trying to make sure that I don't get so wound up that I lose the joy of simply going to the zoo (either visiting another facility or just strolling around the one where I work) and admiring the animals (even the super common ones) and having a pleasant day. That's becoming a lot more important to me than checking off every last species of snake-necked turtle.

Every facility is different - exhibits, collection, layout, landscape - and I'm trying to be more appreciative of each one as being unique. If they don't have one of my favorite species (a list which changes rapidly week by week), that's ok - I'll see and appreciate what they do have.
 
I have never been in a position where I was able to only visit zoos which held my favorite animals. For most of my life, my favorite animals have been elephants, but the nearest zoo with them was always an hour away and as a kid it was hard to convince my parents to drive me regularly. As a result, I’ve always visited zoos which lack my favorite animals, but even if I did have more zoos with elephants near me today, I don’t think that would cause me to neglect the zoos that don’t have them. I think that growing up near zoos which don’t have elephants has made me appreciate all zoos more, because it has made me accustomed to finding value in facilities that lack the animals I like most.

Finding value in elephant-less zoos has even changed what other species I consider to be my favorites. After years of watching the gorillas at Franklin Park, the species entered my top 2 slots for favorite animals. But if I had only visited zoos with elephants, I never would have been exposed to gorillas like this and never would have fostered such an appreciation for them.
 
Last edited:
Although I normally prefere to see animals that are not exhibited in zoos that often (= rare in captivity), I REAL zoo MUST have either elephants or tigers.
 
I find zoos without monkeys seem to lack something - even/especially if they have lemurs or gibbons but no monkeys. Two examples spring to mind:

Monarto Zoo, South Australia: an amazing open range zoo in every possible way (arguably the best zoo in the Soouthern Hemisphere) - all except for one thing…. Not one species of monkey! It’s such a great zoo but the lack of monkeys spoils it for me in a way.

Point Defiance Zoo, Tacoma USA: another really great zoo doing great things - but please (if you are reading this) just get some squirrel monkeys or something!

A zoo without monkeys feels like a kitchen draw that’s been left open by 2 centimetres or something - it just doesn’t feel complete to me.

That said, number of species have never been that important to me: it’s far more important to me that a zoo looks pretty and that animals have high quality enclosures which look natural and leafy. I’m very unimpressed by zoos which pride themselves on holding more species if they display the animals poorly and/or the place is a mess.

I would rather visit a zoo with 20 species displayed well in a beautiful setting than a zoo with 60 species that looked ugly - as long as the former had monkeys though :P
 
ZooElephantsMan said:
I have never been in a position where I was able to only visit zoos which held my favorite animals. For most of my life, my favorite animals have been elephants, but the nearest zoo with them was always an hour away and as a kid it was hard to convince my parents to drive me regularly. As a result, I’ve always visited zoos which lack my favorite animals, but even if I did have more zoos with elephants near me today, I don’t think that would cause me to neglect the zoos that don’t have them. I think that growing up near zoos which don’t have elephants has made me appreciate all zoos more, because it has made me accustomed to finding value in facilities that lack the animals I like most.

Finding value in elephant-less zoos has even changed what other species I consider to be my favorites. After years of watching the gorillas at Franklin Park, the species entered my top 2 slots for favorite animals. But if I had only visited zoos with elephants, I never would have been exposed to gorillas like this and never would have fostered such an appreciation for them.
Click to expand...

I like this post: being grateful for the things we do have (rather than getting upset over what we don’t have) is a great way to live - and one that brings happiness. This applies to zoos and other areas of life. I’m lucky to have 2 great zoos very close to me. There are many species neither of them have but I’m far more focused on the magnificent animals that they do have!
 
As a child, when Lincoln Park Zoo closed their elephant habitat to construct Regenstein African Journey, I was devastated and my then home zoo lost a lot in my eyes. They were my childhood favorite animal by miles and that meant more than anything at the time. I visited a few times after they came back and by the time they had all passed away, I understood they weren't coming back and was old enough to start looking to other parts of the zoo.

As an adult though, I can't imagine de-ranking a zoo over missing a specific animal, unless it were missing an extremely broad category such as no reptiles or no birds.
 
Most zoo i've been to dont have my favourite species. In fact, when i create this username back in 2016 i have never seen an aardvark in real life! Hence my top 3 favourite zoo visited dont have them.
 
aardvark250 said:
Most zoo i've been to dont have my favourite species. In fact, when i create this username back in 2016 i have never seen an aardvark in real life! Hence my top 3 favourite zoo visited dont have them.
Click to expand...
Same here! Killer whales are my favourite single species, and I have NEVER seen them in the flesh. But I understand that seeing them in the wild is difficult, and their rarity in captivity is... for a good reason at the end of the day. Not everyone can afford to keep these animals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top