San Diego Zoo I visited the San Diego zoo for the first time in ten years a few weeks ago...

[BenFoxster]

Why are you still griping about this? The zoo pulled the birds for their own safety during the avian flu epidemic. I would far rather not see them than have the zoo leave them unprotected and lose them to disease.
As far as the penguins go, same deal and you've been told already that it was temporary as an avian flu safeguard. The penguins are back in their normal exhibit now and there's zero reason to hold it against the zoo.



Which is many of the newest parts of the zoo and also among what has made the zoo famous among zoo-goers...



As someone else already pointed out, Africa Rocks replaced a whole long trail of exhibits like the ones you're complaining about. Urban Jungle and Center Street are the main remnants of what the zoo used to be, and it wouldn't surprise me to hear of planned renovations to those areas in the next year or two. San Diego has been very conscientious of welfare, and many larger species that used to be at the zoo were shunted to the Safari Park once Elephant Odyssey began construction.
If you think it's terrible now, you would have absolutely hated it back in the 2000's when Horn and Hoof Mesa & Cat and Dog Canyon were still intact, and there were elephants, rhinos, and tapirs in the exhibits along the Urban Jungle loop. The zoo is making a lot of effort to update its exhibits and maintain welfare, and at a pretty solid pace too.



Yet grottos are still rather prominent and far from gone - I've seen similar exhibits that still exist at SF, Oregon, Sacramento, Woodland Park, for example. Often they've seen some upgrades over the years and look a great deal better than they used to.
Woodland Park comes to mind in terms of lots of vegetation, and they're even famous for it. Personal preference for less vegetation is fine, though an animal having naturalistic surroundings and easy hiding places is a plus for the animals. Personally I like having to search a bit.

1. Firstly, I understand now what was best for all the birds (including penguins) and I don't hold it against them anymore, that was my error. All I was saying was that it was disappointing at the time, imagine you went to the zoo and saw the exhibit I showed in the video I linked above? Like I said I could never find anything about the exhibit arrangements prior, it took an hour after hearing about it on Zoo Chat after the trip to find a post from San Diego's social media explaining the circumstance.

2. I was under the impression that the zoo was extremely popular long before the newer exhibits came to be? I thought since the 80's and 90's the zoo was considered to be "the greatest zoo in the world." I'm just being a bit more harsh because I was so hyped beforehand, I thought I was going to the best zoo in the world. It didn't seem much better than any other zoo I'd ever been to.

3. I never said the zoo was terrible, and I certainly don't doubt welfare is great here. Even with the bear grottos I don't think any animals are suffering (though I still think the majority of the exhibits could be bigger, especially the cheetah and lion exhibits), the only exhibit I thought to be "depressing" was the temporary penguin enclosure - prior to knowing it was temporary. Considering the zoo's success breeding a sun bear cub and Andean bear cubs, they definitely have to be doing something right (ironically I didn't see their sun bear cause the sun bear was off exhibit per an exhibit sign too) - though imagine how much better their breeding success would be with modern bear enclosures!

I never said anything bad about naturalistic surroundings and hiding spaces for animals - the opposite the more naturalistic the exhibit the better for both the animal and for my enjoyment, the more naturalistic the better! I don't have many other pictures, but if you were to see the enclosures surely you'd have agreed that the plants were overgrown too. The entire front fencing of the leopard and serval enclosures were entirely covered by large weeds, vines, and plants from top to bottom. You could only spot glances at the leopard (one of my favorite animal) and it was standing right in front of the exhibit fence too, it was standing on its hind legs eating a large meat hanging from a rope but all anyone in the crowd could make out was its tail. If the animals want to hide that's fine, but if the zoo itself doesn't let you see their animals because they can't trim the vegetation just a bit, then I have a problem. The majority of the zoo was like this and I hardly got to see any of the animals. I assume the weeds and branches got too overgrown and they hadn't had a chance to trim anything for a while.

 

[Chimpangeek]

Hard disagree, mate. The Safari Park's got much better resources for rhinos, and the zoo's elephant exhibit is actually one of the best in the nation, especially for geriatric elephants or for bachelors.

Nope. I'm sorry, but the elephant exhibit is mediocre at best. typical boring dusty yard. Oakland Zoo has the best elephant exhibit in California by far. The Safari Park does a good job with Indian and White Rhino's but maybe could focus more on Black Rhino and Sumatran Rhinos

 

[Great Argus]

All I was saying was that it was disappointing at the time, imagine you went to the zoo and saw the exhibit I showed in the video I linked above?

Which is fair enough, and I'm glad to hear you're not holding it against the zoo. Personally I've seen penguin exhibits more disappointing than that temporary one - and as the main exhibit was still open just penguin-less at the time, probably would not have given it much thought.

2. I was under the impression that the zoo was extremely popular long before the newer exhibits came to be? I thought since the 80's and 90's the zoo was considered to be "the greatest zoo in the world."

It has been considered a top-tier collection, yes - though more for its massive collection and the landscaping of the grounds more than exhibitry until the turn of the century to my knowledge. The giant pandas also played a pretty big part.

I'm just being a bit more harsh because I was so hyped beforehand, I thought I was going to the best zoo in the world. It didn't seem much better than any other zoo I'd ever been to

You already stated you skipped several areas though - the aviaries, Reptile Walk, and the children's zoo (as well as not seeing all of Africa Rocks either.) These are a significant part of San Diego Zoo, and looking back at the thread 'America's 100 Must-see Exhibits' from earlier this year here on ZC, the zoo had 6 entries on the list plus 3 honorable mentions. You skipped 3.5 of the 6 entries and likely skipped one of the honorable mentions as well (another aviary.) The zoo has its flaws, yes. But when you're avidly criticizing the zoo as dissapointing yet also admit you skipped many of the areas the zoo is currently known for, that feels decidedly unfair.

though imagine how much better their breeding success would be with modern bear enclosures!

They seem to be doing pretty well already - besides that their current Sloth Bears were born in a grotto style exhibit at Woodland Park.

I don't have many other pictures, but if you were to see the enclosures surely you'd have agreed that the plants were overgrown too.

Maybe, but to a large extent lushness tends to be San Diego's style (EO aside.) Many of the exhibits at Woodland Park are similar, and I think it generally adds more than detracts.

The entire front fencing of the leopard and serval enclosures were entirely covered by large weeds, vines, and plants from top to bottom. You could only spot glances at the leopard (one of my favorite animal) and it was standing right in front of the exhibit fence too, it was standing on its hind legs eating a large meat hanging from a rope but all anyone in the crowd could make out was its tail. If the animals want to hide that's fine, but if the zoo itself doesn't let you see their animals because they can't trim the vegetation just a bit, then I have a problem.

In my experience overgrown exhibits seem to be common for spotted cats - whether for the cat's comfort or to challenge the public's observation skills. I have generally observed however that the cats seem to be more inclined to be outdoors and in view in such exhibits.

 

[TZDugong]

I'm just being a bit more harsh because I was so hyped beforehand, I thought I was going to the best zoo in the world. It didn't seem much better than any other zoo I'd ever been to.

This is a completely fair opinion to have, but I’m not sure how you can really have overall impressions of the zoo considering you only visited half the place. Not only that, but you somehow managed to miss pretty much all of the zoos best exhibits (reptile walk, walk-through aviaries, children’s zoo).

I would definitely recommend re-visiting the zoo and seeing all the areas you missed, I think you would like SDZ a lot more.

 

[StoppableSan]

Nope. I'm sorry, but the elephant exhibit is mediocre at best. typical boring dusty yard. Oakland Zoo has the best elephant exhibit in California by far. The Safari Park does a good job with Indian and White Rhino's but maybe could focus more on Black Rhino and Sumatran Rhinos

Horn and Hoof Mesa was on its way out by the time Elephant Odyssey was coming to fruition - could they have done a more standard theme/forested yard? Sure. Ultimately they went with an unorthodox theme, and legit have one of the best elephant facilities in the nation. Even if it's not aesthetically pleasing, do the elephants care? Especially when they have a team of keepers who change out the log structures in their exhibit on a DAILY basis, rotate the animals/give them access to all the space in the exhibit, and are slowly but surely planting the exhibit anyways? The zoo planted some fig trees in the exhibit, is growing plants slowly but surely on the utilitrees, and is growing grass in the exhibit as well. If they just focused on rhinos instead, as cool as they are, ultimately would have been a disappointing replacement. Ultimately the elephants/lions/jaguar/tapir/capybara/guanaco needed a new home, and this was the best site to do it on.

 

[Kudu21]

@Great Argus and @TZDugong have done a wonderful job speaking on the other posts on this thread, so I will not comment on those; however...

Nope. I'm sorry, but the elephant exhibit is mediocre at best. typical boring dusty yard. Oakland Zoo has the best elephant exhibit in California by far. The Safari Park does a good job with Indian and White Rhino's but maybe could focus more on Black Rhino and Sumatran Rhinos

That is a bold statement to make for a state that is filled with what are generally considered to be amongst the best elephant exhibits in the country. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; however, I cannot say that I think Oakland would be my top choice. The only thing Oakland's exhibit seems to have going for it is its immense size, and while size is, of course, an important factor for elephant exhibits, it is not everything. The spaces available to the elephants need to be engaging, dynamic, and changing, and one giant six-acre yard is not necessarily going to provide this automatically. From what I have heard through the grapevine, functionally, the exhibit is not as large as it appears because the steep grade it is built upon prevents the elephants from wanting to traverse the full area, so their space usage is actually quite limited. From a visitor perspective, the viewing is also quite limited, which is also something to consider for impact and engagement. I am not trying to say that I think it is a bad exhibit by any means (there are definitely far worse elephant exhibits out there) or that the staff at Oakland is not fully committed to providing the best care for their elephants, I just wanted to provide the perspective that size is not the end-all-be-all for elephant exhibits.

To speak on the Safari Park and its rhinos, I think that statement comes across a little pointed considering the sheer amount of investment and return the park has seen in its white and greater one-horned herds over the past 50 years. What the park has achieved in not only the breeding of southern white and greater one-horned rhinos, but also their husbandry, physiology, behavior, and in-situ conservation is nothing to shake a stick at. Sumatrans are obviously never going to happen. That ship sailed a long time ago, and they would have done terribly at the park anyways -- it is far too dry and far too sunny. The park does invest a lot of money into conservation work in Indonesia that does benefit the remaining animals in the wild. With the blacks, they never ended up doing well in the field exhibits despite multiple tries across the decades. To support a breeding pair of black rhinos at the park again, a whole new complex would have to be built from scratch. The park funnels a lot of money into in-situ conservation for black rhinos and still does a lot to support the rhino from the park that was reintroduced to the wild.