Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo Henry Doorly Zoo News

Right the First Time

BlackRhino said:
So it sounds like Omaha has no where near a top ten zoo. I actually wanted to go to this zoo until I read that my three favorite animals in the Lied Jungle have the three worst exhibits (Clouded Leopard, Pygmy Hippo, Tapir). Desert Dome sounded great until I found my favorite animal in there had the worst enclosure (the Puma). Kingdoms of the Night still sounds good, but after hearing everyone's opinion on Lied Jungle and Desert Dome it sounds like its not worth visiting.
Click to expand...

BlackRhino, you were correct the first time about this guy -- he's just a very negative person when it comes to evaluating zoos. Anyone that finds San Diego "appalling" has a problem with negativity. Also, he betrayed his severe BIAS with his political comments, linking Omaha's zoo to the state's political leanings.

You should DEFINITELY go see Omaha someday -- but go with an OPEN MIND! Don't let these negative reports affect (or infect) your observation. That's the problem with some of these reports -- they have been severely infected by the radically negative views of a guy who wrote a zoo-hating book about a decade ago. This guy (the author, who is quoted to have said "I don't like zoos") had a personal vendetta against Lee Simmons (Omaha Director), so he wrote some absolutely scathing (and, in my opinion, false) things about the Lied Jungle and the Zoo in general. Ever since then, the dedicated readers of this book have just assumed that this book is correct about Omaha, and when they go there, they go EXPECTING to see bad things. I've seen on ZooBeat some participants call this book "my Bible" -- and then they are overly negative in all of their observations.

I've been to this Zoo 3 times. I saw NOTHING wrong with most of the exhibits. Yes, the Cat Complex building is outdated and boring in its design, but I saw nothing unhealthy in the actual animals living there -- and they ARE breeding, which is usually a good sign of health. In the Lied Jungle, the clouded leopard habitat is often cited as too small. When you first see it (from inside a cave), yes, it appears to be small. But if you go around, back out into the main Jungle area, the enclosure is much larger than it at first appears. It's certainly much larger than the leopard enclosure in the Bronx Zoo's JungleWorld -- an exhibit that most Omaha-critics adore. (By the way, I love JungleWorld too, and I'm NOT criticizing it at all.) The Bear "pits" at Omaha are also old, but still somewhat attractive (in my opinion). I also saw nothing to indicate the bears were unhealthy.

Hey, different people can have different opinions. But when someone gives very biased opinions, based on his bias against the local area for whom they voted for in past presidential elections, and further is biased by an old book -- those opinions can be dismissed out of hand.
 
@zooplantman: In general Pygmy Hippos like indoor exhibits better than out. I have heard this from a pygmy hippo keeper. They like the cover over themselves.

@Anyhuis: I definitely still want to visit the Henry Doorly Zoo someday and a highly doubt it is anything like reduakri made it seem to be. I like to have a more positive outlook on zoos and I can assure you that I don't go to them searching for flaws. It seems that you are the same way.
 
First off, my apologies for mixing politics with zoo commentary, although I believe there is some correlation between political mindset and quality of cultural institutions, including zoos. I stand by my criticism that the overall look and feel of Omaha's zoo is unsophisticated and--to my mind--ugly. I also have no problem making the case that the San Diego Zoo could and should be far better given all the things it has going for it.

However, I most certainly do not hate zoos--I love them and believe they have the potential to make positive contributions to conservation and to the cultural fabric of the communities they serve. But I will say that I am not a zoo FAN, but instead a zoo critic. There is a big difference between accepting everything as great just because it's a zoo, and acknowledging that there are things that could and should be improved. PETA and others who don't like zoos will use all shortcomings at all zoos to fight for their radical agenda, one that has greater and greater support, especially among young people who will be determining the future of zoos in the years ahead. It is vital that zoos stay well ahead of potential criticism, and the best way to do that is to be internally critical and continually question if they are doing the best they can (for animals and visitors), and constantly seeking to raise the bar, not simply to defend their current practices.

I've privately communicated to Snowleopard my "top 5" US zoos/aquariums, although this is a very hard thing to do as each time I make a list it changes. My criteria includes the visitor experience, but also significantly weighs the quality of the institution's commitment to conservation, research and education. As Mr. Leopard requested, here's my current crack at the top 10:

1. Monterey Bay Aquarium--superlative exhibits, strong and focused mission, amazing research, great conservation education programs (i.e. Seafood Watch) and no attempts to overreach in the name of attracting visitors by adding commercial dolphin shows etc. Constantly seeking to learn how to better communicate with visitors and using technology to improve animal exhibition. A complete class act.

2. Bronx Zoo--arguably the best exhibits in the zoo world, consistently setting new standards since 1941 (African Plains) to 2008 (Madagascar). Some vestiges of the old zoo remain, and the Wild Asia monorail is unsatisfactory. But the innovations of World of Darkness, World of Birds, Jungleworld, Himalayan Highlands, Congo, and Tiger Mountain have all served as models other zoos try to repeat, usually with less success. But what really distinguishes the Bronx are its monumental conservation activities all over the world. Not only do they dwarf those of any other zoo, they rival the impact of big conservation groups like WWF and CI.

3. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum--like Monterey, this institution is focused on representing one place in detail and very, very well. Nearly every exhibit is outstanding, and a great conservation/education focus on a very endangered habitat. Beautiful and classy.

4. Shedd Aquarium--huge, comprehensive aquarium that has transcended its traditional past and historic building limitations with great exhibits. World class conservation efforts, including focuses on the Philippines and Great Lakes.

5. Disney's Animal Kingdom--the Kilimanjaro Safari ride is the best immersion experience ever built, animal management spaces are superb, and the Disney Company has become a strong conservation funder.

6. Woodland Park Zoo--80% of the zoo is top of the line immersion habitats, tastefully done. Pioneering exhibits that stand the test of time.

7. San Diego Wild Animal Park--although increasingly being ruined by crass commercialism, the scale of the place and the amazing animal breeding efforts here require it be included among the very best. Like the Zoo, however, the potential of the site, climate, money and collection have not been taken advantage of.

8. San Diego Zoo--Unfortunately content to ride on reputation and cover up sins with plants, but nevertheless an amazing zoo. If all the new exhibits built in the past 20 years were anywhere close to being as good as the first two built as part of the zoo's renewal (Kopje and Tiger River), it might be the best zoo on earth. But nothing done in recent years has that level of quality. Admirable conservation programs a major plus.

9. Omaha--despite my criticisms, an amazing story of a single person creating a major institution from next to nothing in a community which would not seem big enough to support such an effort. As Snowleopard says, they have "swung for the fences" with big idea exhibits, and have developed a really important conservation/research program. The diversity of the collection is also incredible. But that a place I've been so critical of ends up as a "top 10" zoo on my list indicates how much work I think is needed at all of the other zoos that didn't make the cut.

10. Denver Zoo--great collection, strong conservation and education programs, terrific attendance and public support. Predator Ridge is an example of what the zoo is capable of. If the planned Asia/elephant exhibit is as good as promised, this will be another zoo on the rise.


Up and Coming/Just Missed the Cut:

St. Louis
Jacksonville
Georgia Aquarium
Ft. Worth
Minnesota
Detroit
Oregon
Wichita
Columbus
Tennessee Aquarium
Oklahoma City

Small but really good:
Central Park
Living Desert
NW Trek
Oregon Coast Aquarium
Nashville
Binder Park

Once great, but now need lots of work:
North Carolina
National
Audubon
Brookfield
Cincinnati

Can't wait to see what hornets THIS message stir up!
 
Reduakari,
I too apologize! I hope you didn't think I was implying that YOU are a "zoo-hater". I meant nothing of the kind. I was referring to a certain author who, through his oft-cited book, and through his personal statements, has actually harmed the zoo movement. He has been quoted many times by both PETA and IDA, in their propaganda against zoos. Unfortunately, he has been quoted a lot here on ZooBeat, including his scathing comments about Omaha. I was merely pointing out that many seem to assume whatever he (one who admittedly says "I don't like zoos") says is always right, so if he says Omaha is bad, it must be. But I was WRONG to assume that was your thinking. That you still put Omaha on your Top 10 list proves me wrong. So again I apologize!

I hope you understand that, as the author of a zoo guidebook, I cannot be a "critic" like you are. When we saw things we didn't like in zoos, we simply described them very generically, without any glowing adjectives. But what we liked, we praised.

As per those "hornets", I'll just say that your Top 10 list is pretty good. I'd disagree slightly on the ordering of your list, and leave a couple zoos off the Top 10, but overall, we have a lot of agreement.
 
I see where kind of turning this into three threads!

BlackRhino said:
@zooplantman: In general Pygmy Hippos like indoor exhibits better than out. I have heard this from a pygmy hippo keeper. They like the cover over themselves.
Click to expand...

I assumed as much.Thanks!
So it's really that they want cover - like gorillas do - rather then indoor vs. outdoors. The keeper I expect spoke from the experience s/he had.
 
ANyhuis said:
Reduakari,
I too apologize! I hope you didn't think I was implying that YOU are a "zoo-hater". I meant nothing of the kind. I was referring to a certain author who, through his oft-cited book, and through his personal statements, has actually harmed the zoo movement. He has been quoted many times by both PETA and IDA, in their propaganda against zoos. Unfortunately, he has been quoted a lot here on ZooBeat, including his scathing comments about Omaha.
Click to expand...

Can't blame an author for who quotes him or how. My book for school kids on plants, symbiotic relationships, etc. has been quoted by evangelists for their Creationist crap. Not ever my intention or belief, but what can you do? Referring to David as a zoo-hater (is that what you meant?) is simply ridiculous
 
This is an intriguing thread, and even though it has dissolved into a few different topics I was impressed by reduakari's top ten list. I adore lists and statistics, and so I have to admit to having read the list through three times before deciding how to respond. A number of people emailed me their North American top 10 lists around May of this year in preparation for my summer road trip. I've never publicly released any of those lists because some people work in zoos or deal with the zoo world and requested anonymity under those circumstances. There are prominent authors and zoo keepers who have sent me their lists and I'll never release them on here unless at first authorized. One thing that would be cool would be to create an updated top ten thread where everyone simply lumps in their personal choices. That way we could all see the trends that emerge from our own tastes.

Looking at reduakari's list and comparing it to my own (which excluded aquariums) it seems as if we are in very close agreement. I loved the descriptions as it lent validity to the process. If I were to include aquariums then our lists would be almost identical, but the zoos would be shifted around into different positions. San Diego is #1 in my book, but it's cool to see truly great institutions like Shedd and Monterey Bay combined with the zoos. I'm a huge fan of exhibitry, and that's why I agree with reduakari's decision to have both the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum and Woodland Park Zoo in the top ten. The fact that many moons ago David Hancocks was the director of each of those has no bearing on my decision-making process as I also happen to believe that Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo is a top 5 contender. After my jaunt through Florida next month I will have seen 18 of reduakari's top 21 zoos/aquariums, and have little to complain about as far as his reasoning is concerned.

Everyone has to listen to the opinion of others with respect and courtesy on this site. I firmly believe that if someone has not visited a particular zoo then they cannot honestly rank it in comparison to ones that they have spent half a day walking around in. An individual can read a hundred books on a place but actually being there in the flesh is a whole different ballgame. I have been to the majority of really top-class zoos and aquariums in North America, but I'm also the first to admit that there are plenty of good ones still awaiting a future visit and loads of people who have been to far more zoos than myself. For example I have never visited the St. Louis, North Carolina or Oakland zoos, and I stated that when I made my top ten list and thus they didn't have a chance of appearing on it. I'm curious as hell to see whether Jacksonville, DAK or Miami Metrozoo will compete with the heavyweights of the zoo world after my December travels. Also, ranking zoos is fluid. I know a handful of people that have both the Minnesota and Oklahoma City zoos in their top 10, but would those zoos really have been there without 2008's "Russia's Grizzly Coast" and 2007's "Oklahoma Trails"? One set of habitats can elevate a zoo into a higher status amongst zoo nerds like us.
 
reduakari said:
8. San Diego Zoo--Unfortunately content to ride on reputation and cover up sins with plants, but nevertheless an amazing zoo. If all the new exhibits built in the past 20 years were anywhere close to being as good as the first two built as part of the zoo's renewal (Kopje and Tiger River), it might be the best zoo on earth. But nothing done in recent years has that level of quality. Admirable conservation programs a major plus.
Click to expand...

Having only been to one zoo on your list, and that zoo not being san diego, i shouldn't really be commenting but i heard that the san diego zoo was one of the top three zoos in the US for selling their stock on the black market with a rate of 79%. Surely this is not a zoo which does "Admirable conservation".
 
Don't believe everything "I heard"

redpanda said:
Having only been to one zoo on your list, and that zoo not being san diego, i shouldn't really be commenting but i heard that the san diego zoo was one of the top three zoos in the US for selling their stock on the black market with a rate of 79%. Surely this is not a zoo which does "Admirable conservation".
Click to expand...

The key words are "I heard". Most of the time, such things are false, as I believe these charges are.
 
"I heard"

ANyhuis said:
The key words are "I heard". Most of the time, such things are false, as I believe these charges are.
Click to expand...

"I heard" this from 'Zoo - A History of Zoological Gardens in the West' (page 280), it is not simply an unconfirmed piece of gossip that "i heard" on the grape-vine. As has already been discussed on this thread, books can be misleading in which case i appologise for the misinformation however i have always found this recent edition factual rather than oppinionated. I fully accept that i have never been to the san diego zoo and know very little about its dealings, legitimate or otherwise. I also recognise that i am a zoo novice in comparison to yourself and respect that if you write something on the subject, in this case that the accusations are unfair, you are most probably right - i just wanted to say that the source of the said statement was legitimate; not a piece of gossip that i wrote as i could think of nothing else to say.
 
The San Diego Zoo is my personal favorite zoo and it has a bundle of greta conservation programs and exhibits. My personal favorite is the Ituri Forest.
 
redpanda said:
"I heard" this from 'Zoo - A History of Zoological Gardens in the West' (page 280), it is not simply an unconfirmed piece of gossip that "i heard" on the grape-vine. As has already been discussed on this thread, books can be misleading in which case i appologise for the misinformation however i have always found this recent edition factual rather than oppinionated. I fully accept that i have never been to the san diego zoo and know very little about its dealings, legitimate or otherwise. I also recognise that i am a zoo novice in comparison to yourself and respect that if you write something on the subject, in this case that the accusations are unfair, you are most probably right - i just wanted to say that the source of the said statement was legitimate; not a piece of gossip that i wrote as i could think of nothing else to say.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean to hit you hard. Just to point out that the San Diego Zoo is a pretty reputable organization and thus it's awfully hard for me to believe they'd be dealing with the "black market".
 
In the 1970s and 80s the zoo did a lot of transactions with private dealers, and some of the animals involved ended up in "canned hunt" private ranches in Texas. This was well documented in Alan Green's Animal Underworld.

The Zoo has a long history of working with private breeders, particularly in the reptile, hoofstock and bird collections. About 10 years ago one of the Zoo's Assistant Curators of Reptiles was convicted of illegal trade in endangered species on the side.

A large portion of the extensive hoofstock collection recently disassembled to accommodate 'Elephant Odyssey' has been moved into the hands of private collectors. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but does open the zoo up to potential criticism.

The conservation work of the Zoo that I praised in an earlier post is focused more on reproductive research and field conservation. The management of the captive population under the control of SD Zoological Society is a different matter. In this arena, SDZS has always been big enough to play by their own set of rules.
 
And about ten years ago there was a scandal affecting a great many AZA accredited zoos about how they handled "excess" animals. Whether it was unethical or not is for someone higher to decide, but it was serious enough (and San Diego was involved) and well enough documented to cause some serious reforms and embarrassment.

But isn't there dirty laundry in everyone's closet?
Will we judge anyone based on that?
Cannot even formidable conservation organizations also be doing some pretty nasty things?
It's never so clean. In fact , you can't do international conservation without getting your hands pretty dirty.
 
The new website is a thousand times better than the old one, but I still am not much of a fan of the actual zoo map. The links to all of the exhibits are fascinating and informative, and the organized and detailed history link is intriguing as it shows how the zoo has evolved over time. Omaha has the world's largest indoor rainforest, the world's largest desert dome, the world's largest nocturnal house, the world's largest indoor swamp, the world's second largest free-flight aviary, excellent gorilla and orangutan exhibits, etc... This zoo has some major flaws (big cat complex, bear grottoes) but is easily one of the 5 best in North America. I can't wait for the skyfari ride, Madagascar, Arctic and elephant habitats that are to be built in the near future.
 
Repeating my opinion about Omaha's zoo would be a waste of time for all of us ;) J

ust a "short" remark: I do support a lot of the points of critique by reduakari (although I can't support his critique about the Omaha in general; I have been to much worse places, and most of its residents seemed to be nice people). Positive things about the zoo: There are some neat immersion elements for visitors, the species collection is remarkable, I acknowledge Le Simmon's personal efforts and I happen to know and like some people of the zoo staff, the majority of the animals seems to do fine etc etc. Nevertheless, I think that there is quite a bunch of things to nag about at HD-mainly for the benefit of the animals kept there.

ANyhuis asks us to be open-minded; but being open-minded doesn't have to mean to carry blinkers, to be blind to obvious flaws and impervious to advice and constructive criticism. Trying to devaluate reduakari as a "negative zoohater" because he stated what was obvious to many international zoo and wildlife veterinarians during the AAZV/AAWV conference at Omaha 2005 was a shot in one's own foot...I'm glad this has been benignly solved, and I hope such a jawing match won't happen again.
The fear of PETA shouldn't prompt pro-zoo people into tearing lumps out of each other due to minor dissension.

And btw: I also have seen various husbandries both before and behind the scenes in San Diego that were far from optimal for the animals held within. Does that make me into a "negative zoohater", too? Or maybe I'm a bit more realistic, experienced and interested in caring for the well-being of the animals...And believe it or not: I nevertheless think that SD is a pretty good zoo.

David Hancocks might have about-faced his opinions about zoos in his late years; his bad luck and loss. But his previous ideas in regard to exhibit design and his points of critique mentioned in regard to Omaha and other zoos are nevertheless, if objectively regarded, often still valid, whether you read them before your visit to Omaha or afterwards. And what's the constant "bible" reference about? Just causes bad blood...
Too bad I can't come to Omaha in the next future; I'd really love to visit the exhibits bit by bit with you in person, @ANyhuis and @blackrhino (also behind the scenes)-maybe then you could see what reduakari, I and even Hancocks (!) have to nag about, and maybe I could try to understand your all-too positive viewpoint-seriously! About breeding-see my remarks regarding stress-induced hypersexuality.

Of course people have different opinions. But there are some criteria in regard to animal husbandry in zoos that can be measured and observed objectively-no matter what your current "zoo opinion/mood" is like at the moment. We should all agree that a drowned owl in an exhibit, a pair of cougars endlessly pacing indoors on a tiny bare rockshelf, exhibits filled to the rim with animals (Kingdom of the Night) or a dozen of desert monitors squeezed together in a 4 feet long tiny exhibit aren't examples of modern, animal-adequate husbandries, are they? And starting from that, one might reconsider and think about some of the husbandries he/she considered "flawless" before...This might lead some all too zoo-positive zoochat members to another, more realistic viewpoint when looking at zoo exhibits and zoo husbandry in general and sharpen your eyes for real flaws.

'There is a big difference between accepting everything as great just because it's a zoo, and acknowledging that there are things that could and should be improved.'
Spot on. If we just consider the current situation as "perfect" and remain deaf to constructive critique, there will be no improvement. A shame, especially for the animals involved!

@blackrhino: So a single zookeeper's opinion is enough ground for you to generalize about pygmy hippos and their alleged favouring of indoor exhibits? Without wanting to discredit this very zookeeper: what about getting other people's opinions, doing some literature research on this regard and observe various pygmy hippos in different husbandries personally for longer periods of time, before regarding someone's opinion as the one and only truth?
And what about not trying to belittle someone prematurely as 'negative' when he/she contradicts your current opinion? Changing this attitude will help you tremendously, not just on the field of zoos...

@snowleopard: And I can't wait till they start to tackle their current husbandry problems (including mass deaths of budgies, ancient cat houses and certain indoor exhibits...) before creating new ones...:rolleyes:;)
 
I don't really want to get involved in all the sniping above, re whether creationism can be described as "crap" (in my book, and as a practising catholic, possibly this is a little on the mild side), whether Omaha is a decent place (my experience of it was that it summed all that was best and worst about the midwest) and whether Blackrhino should be so quick to condemn someone (probably not...), and whether pygmy hippos like to stay outside (those at Marwell have an open, featureless lawn on which to graze - and they appear to love it).

What hits me over the head, looking at the new Omaha web site, is the entry charge. It's extraordinary: $11.50 for an adult. Even with dodgy exchange rates, it's about half of what it would cost to get in to most UK zoos. And you get to see dead owls there as well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top