List and Rank The North American Zoos You Have Visited!

[Pleistocene891]

I'm still shocked to see so many people rank Lincoln Park above Brookfield!

I honestly think it's recency bias. Brookfield is still in my opinion a very good zoo with just a few flaws, like most zoos. It's just that since they haven't expanded much in the last 10 years, I assume that people are getting bored with it.

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

1. Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo
2. San Diego Zoo Safari Park
3. San Diego Zoo
4. Seaworld San Diego
5. Zoo Miami
6. Pittsburgh Zoo
These are just the major institutions I've been to, and as I hope to visit Saint Louis, Minnesota, Brookfield/Lincoln Park and the Bronx Zoos soon, this list will of course be updated.

 

[TZDugong]

Zoos

1. Bronx Zoo
2. National Zoo
3. Zoo Miami
4. Toronto Zoo( Local zoo)
5. Brookfield Zoo
6. Disney Animal Kingdom
7. Busch Gardens
8. Rosamond Gifford Zoo
9. Pittsburgh Zoo
10. Lincoln Park Zoo
11. Granby Zoo
12. African Lion Safari
13. Central Park Zoo
14. National Aviary(in Pittsburgh)
15. High Park Zoo


Aquariums

1. Georgia Aquarium( easily)
2. Shedd Aquarium
3. National Aquarium in Baltimore.
4. Ripley's Aquarium of Canada
5. SeaWorld Orlando
6. Clearwater Aquarium
7. National Aquarium in Washington

It's been almost 5 years since I last updated these rankings, and since then I've visited a lot more facilities, with many changes to my rankings.

Zoos:
1. San Diego Zoo
2. Bronx Zoo
3. Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo
4. Woodland Park Zoo
5. Dallas Zoo
6. San Diego Zoo Safari Park
7. Detroit Zoo
8. Living Desert Zoo and Gardens
9. Zoo Miami
10. Cincinnati Zoo
11. Kansas City Zoo
12. Fort Worth Zoo
13. Brookfield Zoo
14. Smithsonian National Zoo
15. Lincoln Park Zoo
16. Disney Animal Kingdom
17. Philadelphia Zoo
18. Columbus Zoo
19. Toronto Zoo
20. L.A Zoo
21. Zoo de Granby
22. San Francisco Zoo
23. Pittsburgh Zoo
24. Dallas World Aquarium
25. Rosamond Gifford Zoo
26. Cameron Park Zoo
27. Central Park Zoo
28. Buffalo Zoo
29. Montreal Biodome
30. Safari Niagara
31. African Lion Safari
32. High Park Zoo

Aquariums:
1. Monterey Bay Aquarium
2. Georgia Aquarium
3. Shedd Aquarium
4. National Aquarium in Baltimore
5. Vancouver Aquarium
6. California Academy of Sciences
7. Seattle Aquarium
8. Adventure Aquarium
9. Seaworld Orlando
10. Ripley's Aquarium of Canada
11. Ripley's Aquarium of the Smokies
12. The Florida Aquarium
13. Aquarium of Quebec
14. Birch Aquarium
15. Mandalay Bay Aquarium
16. Miami Seaquarium
17. National Aquarium (D.C) (now closed)
18. MarineLand

Specialist Collections:
1. National Aviary
2. Monkey Jungle
3. Bird Kingdom
4. Reptilia
5. Bloedl Conservatory

 

[pachyderm pro]

I'm still shocked to see so many people rank Lincoln Park above Brookfield!

It's close, but overall Lincoln Park better utilizes its limited acreage than Brookfield does its far less limited acreage. The gardens are beautiful, the city atmosphere is absolutely lovely, and in general the grounds are kept clean and presentable. The animal houses here are bright and airy compared to a lot of buildings at Brookfield that are rather dim and while Lincoln Parks collection isn't nearly as extensive, the presentation is far more interesting. Brookfield just hasn't been maintained as well, which has been discussed at length on this site so I won't dive too deep into it here.

Do keep in mind I've visited both these places for all my life so I see them a bit differently than I do the other collections on the list. In a few years time however, I anticipate Brookfield will gain an edge once again.

 

[15399]

It's close, but overall Lincoln Park better utilizes its limited acreage than Brookfield does its far less limited acreage. The gardens are beautiful, the city atmosphere is absolutely lovely, and in general the grounds are kept clean and presentable. The animal houses here are bright and airy compared to a lot of buildings at Brookfield that are rather dim and while Lincoln Parks collection isn't nearly as extensive, the presentation is far more interesting. Brookfield just hasn't been maintained as well, which has been discussed at length on this site so I won't dive too deep into it here.

Do keep in mind I've visited both these places for all my life so I see them a bit differently than I do the other collections on the list. In a few years time however, I anticipate Brookfield will gain an edge once again.

Yeah, I definitely think when people start comparing Brookfield and Lincoln Park it always boils down to a quantity versus quality argument. Lincoln Park will never be able to compete with the quantity Brookfield is able to exhibit, but has built more exhibits in recent years and arguably is the much higher quality zoo. Many members, such as myself, view quality as much more important than the size of the zoo, and while it's been too many years since I've been to Chicago to rank those zoos, in many other instances I have ranked a smaller zoo over one that is (sometimes substantially) larger due to being of a higher quality.

 

[JVM]

I don't think my mind is going to change on Brookfield versus Lincoln Park again.

Brookfield used to be my favorite. I once heavily favored the superior collection even as it lost dozens of species in the last two decades, the many themed indoor exhibits used to feel impressive and immersive and it felt like a beautiful and well-maintained campus with an almost overwhelming amount of things to do. The biggest personal change is I don't really value collection anymore -- sustainability in captivity is paramount now over any kind of rarities, and the high number of exclusively indoors species in indoor exhibits has become downright embarassing. Lincoln Park Zoo's smaller collection is more sustainable and much less prone to sudden and unexpected change, a higher proportion of their animals have outdoor access or choice, and their exhibit design is superior to Brookfield equivalent exhibits in almost every case since the most recent renovations, all on a smaller, easier-to-walk campus that is accessible to the public and completely free.

Once you take collection out of the equation and eliminate flimsy arguments like "only one has a pangolin", it's very hard to come up with anything Brookfield is superior to Lincoln Park with.

 

[15399]

The biggest personal change is I don't really value collection anymore -- sustainability in captivity is paramount now over any kind of rarities

Just to clarify- are you saying you prefer zoos that DON'T have any rarities, or just saying that how rare the collection is isn't of any importance to you?

 

[JVM]

Just to clarify- are you saying you prefer zoos that DON'T have any rarities, or just saying that how rare the collection is isn't of any importance to you?

This is a little hard to answer, but I do owe a response.

In trying to form a more objective, balanced opinion, how rare the collection is does not hold any importance to me. The reality is that rarities are a temporary factor in the zoo world that out of date with the modern world. Species kept sustainably are permanent exhibitions that represent a long-term commitment to conservation and education; replacing them is no question because if they are sustainable then transfers are possible. Sustainability is commitment to care. Most rarities are often exhibited in older, subpar exhibits and represent programs that have either failed on a practical level or failed due to a lack of commitment. An exhibit with a rare species that is objectively high quality and well-designed will be just as good for a similar, more sustainable species down the road, and probably be better used as a result.

If we're asking strictly personally, let me confess that I do enjoy seeing rarities and they factor greatly into my trip planning, and feel selfish and regressive for it!

I try hard to isolate those factors from my assessment of the facility because the presence of rare species is never indicative of overall quality. Homogenization is the future of zoos and I maintain that is a positive.

 

[15399]

This is a little hard to answer, but I do owe a response.

In trying to form a more objective, balanced opinion, how rare the collection is does not hold any importance to me. The reality is that rarities are a temporary factor in the zoo world that out of date with the modern world. Species kept sustainably are permanent exhibitions that represent a long-term commitment to conservation and education; replacing them is no question because if they are sustainable then transfers are possible. Sustainability is commitment to care. Most rarities are often exhibited in older, subpar exhibits and represent programs that have either failed on a practical level or failed due to a lack of commitment. An exhibit with a rare species that is objectively high quality and well-designed will be just as good for a similar, more sustainable species down the road, and probably be better used as a result.

If we're asking strictly personally, let me confess that I do enjoy seeing rarities and they factor greatly into my trip planning, and feel selfish and regressive for it!

I try hard to isolate those factors from my assessment of the facility because the presence of rare species is never indicative of overall quality. Homogenization is the future of zoos and I maintain that is a positive.

Even if the SSP is sustainable, that doesn't mean it represents a permanent exhibition, especially not for each individual zoo. Care standards keep evolving, meaning that an exhibit that currently is considered acceptable may not be in five, ten, fifty years. Even if the species itself is from a sustainable population, that doesn't mean the exhibit will allow the zoo to keep the species forever. Furthermore, it also doesn't take into consider whether that individual zoo wants to keep that species forever. Institutional Collection Plans change. New exhibits are built, old exhibits are demolished, exhibits are sometimes renovated and transformed into something for a completely new species. So I'm a little confused when you say it represents a permanent exhibition, where in my eyes if a zoo's collection does not change at all, that means no progress is being made, which would be a bad thing. New animals, and new exhibits, draw people to zoos. Even if all of the species are from sustainable populations, zoos should still be trying to open up some sort of new exhibit every few years- as this is what keeps people coming back. There's also two considerations I'd like to make regarding your sustainability of species:
1. Sustainability isn't permanent. A population is sustainable based on it's current trends, genetics, and population size. Sometimes, populations that may be sustainable now, stop being sustainable for whatever reason. Polar bears would be a good example of this. They were once a standard exhibit species for almost every zoo, but between contraception issues and the ban on breeding wild-caught rescues, the population has become much smaller. While I don't know if the population was ever "sustainable", per say, the point still stands that a once much more common species has gone into decline, to the point it's future in zoos is up in the air. We have no clue what currently sustainable population is going to face challenges that causes it to plummet, whether due to controllable factors (i.e. institutional interest) or uncontrollable challenges (disease, sex-bias in births, etc.).
2. Based on where programs are currently, the goal of AZA zoos should be to increase the number of sustainable programs, not phase out anything that isn't currently sustainable. Just to give an example that I'm knowledgeable of, let's look at the New World Primates Taxonomic Advisory Group. Currently, there are only four New World Primate species in which the population in zoos can be considered sustainable: White-faced Saki, Cottontop Tamarin, Golden Lion Tamarin, and Common Squirrel Monkeys. I think I speak for most people on here when I say that it'd be a real shame if these are the only four New World Primates found in AZA collections. When zoos are evaluating their collections, and looking at New World Primates, I don't think they should look at this and say "we should only get these four species". Rather, the question should be "what other species can we help create sustainable populations for?" The AZA's carrying capacity for sustainable populations is greater than the number of programs currently sustainable. With responsible management, time, and more zoos taking interest in them, it'd be entirely possible to increase that number of sustainable populations. Those four species are ones that whatever is happening right now is working, they have the sustainable populations. Now let's evaluate the other populations and ask what can we do to make these sustainable? While I don't think zoos should be going and acquiring bearded saki, coppery titi, geoffroy's tamarin, or other species that are very rare in AZA zoos, I do think they should be looking at populations with the potential to become sustainable- Geoffroy's Spider Monkeys, Black and Gold Howler Monkeys, Bolivian Grey Titi Monkeys, Geoffroy's Marmosets, Goeldi's Monkey, Brown Capuchin. Even if these programs I listed are the only other ones zoos focus on, we'd end up with a total of ten New World Primate species in US zoos. Ten is pretty decent, as it's not complete homogenization, while still having populations that are sustainable.

 

[JVM]

Even if the SSP is sustainable, that doesn't mean it represents a permanent exhibition, especially not for each individual zoo. Care standards keep evolving, meaning that an exhibit that currently is considered acceptable may not be in five, ten, fifty years. Even if the species itself is from a sustainable population, that doesn't mean the exhibit will allow the zoo to keep the species forever. Furthermore, it also doesn't take into consider whether that individual zoo wants to keep that species forever. Institutional Collection Plans change. New exhibits are built, old exhibits are demolished, exhibits are sometimes renovated and transformed into something for a completely new species. So I'm a little confused when you say it represents a permanent exhibition, where in my eyes if a zoo's collection does not change at all, that means no progress is being made, which would be a bad thing. New animals, and new exhibits, draw people to zoos. Even if all of the species are from sustainable populations, zoos should still be trying to open up some sort of new exhibit every few years- as this is what keeps people coming back. There's also two considerations I'd like to make regarding your sustainability of species:
1. Sustainability isn't permanent. A population is sustainable based on it's current trends, genetics, and population size. Sometimes, populations that may be sustainable now, stop being sustainable for whatever reason. Polar bears would be a good example of this. They were once a standard exhibit species for almost every zoo, but between contraception issues and the ban on breeding wild-caught rescues, the population has become much smaller. While I don't know if the population was ever "sustainable", per say, the point still stands that a once much more common species has gone into decline, to the point it's future in zoos is up in the air. We have no clue what currently sustainable population is going to face challenges that causes it to plummet, whether due to controllable factors (i.e. institutional interest) or uncontrollable challenges (disease, sex-bias in births, etc.).
2. Based on where programs are currently, the goal of AZA zoos should be to increase the number of sustainable programs, not phase out anything that isn't currently sustainable. Just to give an example that I'm knowledgeable of, let's look at the New World Primates Taxonomic Advisory Group. Currently, there are only four New World Primate species in which the population in zoos can be considered sustainable: White-faced Saki, Cottontop Tamarin, Golden Lion Tamarin, and Common Squirrel Monkeys. I think I speak for most people on here when I say that it'd be a real shame if these are the only four New World Primates found in AZA collections. When zoos are evaluating their collections, and looking at New World Primates, I don't think they should look at this and say "we should only get these four species". Rather, the question should be "what other species can we help create sustainable populations for?" The AZA's carrying capacity for sustainable populations is greater than the number of programs currently sustainable. With responsible management, time, and more zoos taking interest in them, it'd be entirely possible to increase that number of sustainable populations. Those four species are ones that whatever is happening right now is working, they have the sustainable populations. Now let's evaluate the other populations and ask what can we do to make these sustainable? While I don't think zoos should be going and acquiring bearded saki, coppery titi, geoffroy's tamarin, or other species that are very rare in AZA zoos, I do think they should be looking at populations with the potential to become sustainable- Geoffroy's Spider Monkeys, Black and Gold Howler Monkeys, Bolivian Grey Titi Monkeys, Geoffroy's Marmosets, Goeldi's Monkey, Brown Capuchin. Even if these programs I listed are the only other ones zoos focus on, we'd end up with a total of ten New World Primate species in US zoos. Ten is pretty decent, as it's not complete homogenization, while still having populations that are sustainable.

I originally used the phrasing "semi-permanent exhibition" because nothing in life is really permanent in my eyes, but I was concerned it would look that I was splitting hairs. Nothing is permanent. That said, it is not unusual in the museum or zoo world to describe a non-temporary exhibit as a permanent exhibit even if will not still be around in a century.

That said, you can't really do Elephant Odyessy, Congo Gorilla Forest, Polk Penguin Conservation Center or Great Bear Wilderness without elephants, gorillas, penguins or bears. Those exhibits are very intentionally themed and designed around specific species and there is an assumption that as long those exhibits stand they will contain the animals they are themed around. Those are also all fairly popular zoo animals, so there is further incentive to keep them on exhibit as long and as often as possible. Those exhibits represent commitments to those species that we can reasonably expect to be indefinite until we are told otherwise. There is no guarantee that a forest building will always house a particular small mammal though, there is no commitment to animals in that kind of display.

You are blurring exhibit into collection a lot here. I do agree that zoos have an obligation to build new exhibits, but that is not the same as increasing collection which there is no obligation or need to do. Brookfield and Lincoln Park both made decisions in the last decade to build new bear habitats to increase the welfare for these animals, which is an objective good, but neither Great Bear Wilderness nor Walter Family Arctic Tundra brought anything new to the collections. Should the polar bears leave either zoo, they will become brown bear exhibits, which may be new for the smaller zoo but is no news for Brookfield. The upcoming Tropic World renovations are improved spaces for gorillas, orangutans and existing monkeys. New animals at that zoo are shoved into old nooks and crannies. Lincoln Park's Penguin Cove contains a new penguin species but the loss of the old seabird house caused an overall collection loss. Is anyone on zoochat going to argue the old Penguin-Seabird House was better though?

The primary point of new exhibits in my experience is usually renovations to increase the welfare of existing, permanently-held animals or sometimes to switch to a different ssp. Older exhibits tend to contain larger numbers of species and greater rarity, new exhibits tend to contain superior care for fewer animals. An improvement in welfare for an animal already on display is not a change in collection though, which is part of my original point about how collection is not a factor to me.

If an ssp becomes unsustainable, that may happen. There are many programs, including polar bears, I do not view as sustainable. I'm not sure what more to say on that point. I think anything that isn't sustainabile is a liability.

As to your second point, if there is one thing I feel I have learned on this board in the last year or so it is that there is almost always a good reason why certain species are not more widely kept. How many zoos have spaces wide open for additional neotropical primates? How do we know there is room to create sustainable populations for more of these species? How do we decide that neotropical primates are a group that deserves expansion? The AZA makes those decisions based on what zoos want. Maybe zoos only want four neotropical primates, or only have space for four. I have no way of knowing these things and until I hear otherwise, I am now going to assume they know what they are doing, and it is not my place to dock any zoo points for having or not having a certain monkey. I recall a user in another thread saying a lot of zoos were less interested in monkeys at present?

However, stepping back -- my original point was that collection doesn't affect my ranking of a zoo. Brookfield having woolly monkeys does not make it an inherently superior zoo to Lincoln Park Zoo, which has howler monkeys. Brookfield having a higher number of species not make it an inherently superior zoo to Lincoln Park Zoo, which has better exhibits.

 

[15399]

As to your second point, if there is one thing I feel I have learned on this board in the last year or so it is that there is almost always a good reason why certain species are not more widely kept. How many zoos have spaces wide open for additional neotropical primates? How do we know there is room to create sustainable populations for more of these species? How do we decide that neotropical primates are a group that deserves expansion? The AZA makes those decisions based on what zoos want. Maybe zoos only want four neotropical primates, or only have space for four. I have no way of knowing these things and until I hear otherwise, I am now going to assume they know what they are doing, and it is not my place to dock any zoo points for having or not having a certain monkey. I recall a user in another thread saying a lot of zoos were less interested in monkeys at present?

My big issue is that zoos need to, and can, do a better job in collection planning in order to allow more populations to become sustainable. Most zoos have at least one or two, if not more, neotropical primates in their collection. For many of these zoos, it is cottontop and/or golden lion tamarins. However, most visitors do not care what tamarin species zoos exhibit, but just want to see monkeys. If a handful of zoos switch from one of those species to a different callichthrid, say goeldi's monkeys or geoffroy's marmosets, it would allow one of these other populations to potentially become more sustainable, while not causing the original species from losing it's sustainability. In fact, I would argue many zoos keep golden lion tamarins in habitats that would be better suited for one of these other species, from an exhibitry perspective, as golden lion tamarins will lose their gold coloration and turn into an off-white color when there is no access to natural sunlight. Many zoos keep golden lion tamarins in exhibits without this access, and would be better suited switching to a different species, which would then allow the possibility of more populations being sustainable. And while there may always be a reason species aren't more commonly kept, I wouldn't say it's always a *good* reason. Oftentimes, the reason is simply that there isn't institutional interest in a particular species, which is a real shame as many of these species are fascinating and would make as interesting, or in many cases better, exhibit species than the more common species.

You are blurring exhibit into collection a lot here. I do agree that zoos have an obligation to build new exhibits, but that is not the same as increasing collection which there is no obligation or need to do. Brookfield and Lincoln Park both made decisions in the last decade to build new bear habitats to increase the welfare for these animals, which is an objective good, but neither Great Bear Wilderness nor Walter Family Arctic Tundra brought anything new to the collections. Should the polar bears leave either zoo, they will become brown bear exhibits, which may be new for the smaller zoo but is no news for Brookfield. The upcoming Tropic World renovations are improved spaces for gorillas, orangutans and existing monkeys. New animals at that zoo are shoved into old nooks and crannies. Lincoln Park's Penguin Cove contains a new penguin species but the loss of the old seabird house caused an overall collection loss. Is anyone on zoochat going to argue the old Penguin-Seabird House was better though?

The primary point of new exhibits in my experience is usually renovations to increase the welfare of existing, permanently-held animals or sometimes to switch to a different ssp. Older exhibits tend to contain larger numbers of species and greater rarity, new exhibits tend to contain superior care for fewer animals. An improvement in welfare for an animal already on display is not a change in collection though, which is part of my original point about how collection is not a factor to me.

No, I am not blurring exhibit into collection. Zoos do have a need (or as you put it an obligation) to change their collection overtime, and to include species new to the zoo when they build new exhibits. Sure, sometimes there is a need for a new home for species already in a collection, but most zoos when building a new exhibit will also bring in some species. This may not always be an expansion of the collection, as there is always give and take, but people come through the gates to see new animals to a degree they do not come in to see new exhibits for species already in the collection (of course there may be exceptions to this rule with very high-profile new exhibits or for new animals of obscure species that aren't marketed well). New exhibits do provide superior care for the animals, and this oftentimes does mean fewer animals, but most of the time, when zoos build new exhibits these exhibits contain some species that are new to the zoo- as this is what draws people in. Sometimes, however, this may not mean fewer species but instead means smaller species. An example of this would be the Faces of the Rainforest exhibit at Roger Williams Park Zoo. When this exhibit was built, it was on top of the zoo's former kangaroo habitat (which held grey kangaroos and emus), and was also paired with the closing of the old Tropical America Building. While the zoo lost two species in kangaroo/emu, and a few others that never carried over from the old Tropical America (green aracari, jamaican fruit bat, chiloe wigeon), the overall number of species increased when this change was made, as new species were brought in for the new building (howler monkeys, bolivian grey titi monkeys, giant river otters, keel billed toucans, southern tamandua, hyacinth macaw, blackspot piranha, neon and cardinal tetras, freshwater angelfish). The total number of species increased, but just became on average smaller in size. Since the building opened, the number of species has changed some as well, with some arrivals and departures especially bird-wise, looking at a snapshot in history from the ending of the old Tropical America/Outback exhibit and the new Faces of the Rainforest, the number of species increased. If you want to get in a rarity argument also, this happens to be a case where the number of rarities also increased, as the zoo gained giant river otters in the new building (and since then giant wood rails have been added as well). I would argue this is a direction a lot of zoos should be taking- rather than shrinking the number of species held, switch to smaller, but just as interesting species, and have less large megafauna if they don't have the space. Rarities also serve a purpose to zoos- and most zoos should continue to keep some rarities (although it should not be the focus of the collection). These are the species that distinguish a zoo from others in the area, and zoos need to avoid complete homogenization (even if some still occurs), as it is important from both conservation and education perspectives to keep as wide an array of species as possible, even with a focus on populations that are sustainable, and trying to make more populations become sustainable. More sustainable populations should be the goal, not eliminating everything that isn't currently a sustainable population.

 

[Bisonblake]

Here is my ranking for the zoos and aquariums I've visited. The ranking is mainly based off of what the zoo/aquarium looked like at the time that I visited.

Zoos:

1. Columbus Zoo & Aquarium
2. Toledo Zoo
3. Disney's Animal Kingdom
4. Zoo Atlanta
5. Nashville Zoo
6. Cincinnati Zoo
7. Detroit Zoo
8. Lincoln Park Zoo
9. Cleveland Metroparks Zoo
10. Honolulu Zoo
11. Central Park Zoo
12. Potter Park Zoo
13. Reptile Gardens
14. Bear Country USA
15. Wild Wonders Wildlife Park
16. Astrada Zoo and Botnaical Gardens
17. Roscommon Zoo
18. The Reptarium

Aquariums:

1. Georgia Aquarium
2. Shedd Aquarium
3. SeaWorld Orlando
4. Newport Aquarium
5. Ripley's Aquarium of the Smokies
6. Seas Pavillion at Epcot
7. North Carolina Aquarium at Roanoke Island
8. Greater Cleveland Aquarium
9. SeaLife Michigan

 

[Milwaukee Man]

Happy 2020 guys! Figured I'd post an updated list, especially after hitting my #40 in late 2019. There's some additional facilities, along with a few adjustments to some original rankings:

* = Non-U.S. Establishment

Zoo Rankings

1. San Diego Zoo Safari Park (2012)
2. San Diego Zoo (2012)
3. Saint Louis Zoo (2013)
4. Columbus Zoo & Aquarium (2008, 2018 - twice)
5. Denver Zoo (2014)
6. North Carolina Zoo (2018)
7. Minnesota Zoo (2015)
8. Fort Worth Zoo (2018)
9. Brookfield Zoo (2010, 2011, 2013, 2018)
10. Memphis Zoo (2016)
11. Busch Gardens Tampa (2008)
12. Disney’s Animal Kingdom (1998, 2004, 2008)
13. Zoo Atlanta (2019)
14. Nashville Zoo (2017)
15. Edinburgh Zoo (2017)*
16. Phoenix Zoo (sometime in the 1990’s, 2005, 2010)
17. Rio Grande Zoo (2015)
18. Louisville Zoo (2017)
19. Zoo Knoxville (2013)
20. Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium (2018 - twice)
21. Buffalo Zoo (2011)
22. Milwaukee County Zoo (all my life)
23. Out of Africa Wildlife Park (sometime in the 1990’s, 2010, 2011)
24. Northeastern Wisconsin Zoo (sometime in the 1990’s, 2016 – 2019)
25. Henry Vilas Zoo (2003, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2019)
26. Racine Zoo (2009 - twice, 2014, 2015 - twice)
27. Peoria Zoo (2017)
28. Oglebay Good Zoo (2018)
29. Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary (sometime in the 1990’s, 2019)
30. Gatorland (2014)
31. Miller Park Zoo (2017, 2018) (TIE)
32. Scovill Zoo (2018) (TIE)
33. Lincoln Park Zoo (Manitowoc) (2016)
34. Alameda Park Zoo (2015)
35. Henson Robinson Zoo (2017)
36. Menominee Park Zoo (2016)
37. DeYoung Family Zoo (2016)
38. Siegfried and Roy’s Secret Garden & Dolphin Habitat (2016)
39. Smithsonian's National Zoo (2009)
40. Special Memories Zoo (2019)


Aquarium Rankings

1. Georgia Aquarium (2019)
2. SeaWorld Orlando (2008)
3. Shedd Aquarium (2002, 2015)
4. Dallas World Aquarium (2018)
5. Shark Reef Aquarium at Mandalay Bay (2015)
6. Albuquerque Aquarium (2015)
7. Aquarium of Niagara (2011)


These are animal facilities that I have visited, but choose not to rank due to different factors. These include being in a totally different focus (such as Moorpark), not being open to the general public (White Oak), don’t remember them much (The Seas, Xcaret, among others), etc.

· Wildwood Wildlife Park & Nature Center (sometime in the 1990’s)
· The Seas with Nemo and Friends (2004, 2008)
· Xcaret Wildlife Habitats (2006, 2007)*
· The Wilds (2008)
· Moorpark College: America’s Teaching Zoo (2012)
· Wild Florida (2014)
· White Oak Conservation Center (2014)
· Aquarium Restaurant in Nashville (2016)
· Safari Lake Geneva (2019)

A few years and many more facilities under my belt later, I have an updated list below. The year(s) of my visit are in parentheses.

* = Non-U.S. Establishment

Zoo Rankings

1. Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo & Aquarium (2020 – twice)
2. San Diego Zoo Safari Park (2012)
3. Bronx Zoo (2022)
4. San Diego Zoo (2012)
5. Saint Louis Zoo (2013)
6. Columbus Zoo & Aquarium (2008, 2018 - twice)
7. Denver Zoo (2014)
8. North Carolina Zoo (2018)
9. Minnesota Zoo (2015)
10. Fort Worth Zoo (2018)
11. Brookfield Zoo (2010, 2011, 2013, 2018)
12. Memphis Zoo (2016)
13. Busch Gardens Tampa (2008)
14. Disney’s Animal Kingdom (1998, 2004, 2008)
15. Zoo Atlanta (2019)
16. Nashville Zoo (2017)
17. Edinburgh Zoo (2017)*
18. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum (2022)
19. Phoenix Zoo (sometime in the 1990’s, 2005, 2010)
20. Indianapolis Zoo (2020)
21. Lincoln Park Zoo (Chicago) (2021)
22. ABQ BioPark Zoo (2015)
23. Toledo Zoo & Aquarium (2021)
24. Louisville Zoo (2017)
25. Zoo Knoxville (2013)
26. Pittsburgh Zoo & Aquarium (2018 - twice)
27. Buffalo Zoo (2011)
28. Milwaukee County Zoo (all my life)
29. Out of Africa Wildlife Park (sometime in the 1990’s, 2010, 2011)
30. Northeastern Wisconsin Zoo (sometime in the 1990’s, 2016 – 2022)
31. Henry Vilas Zoo (2003, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2019, 2021)
32. Racine Zoo (2009 - twice, 2014, 2015 - twice)
33. Peoria Zoo (2017)
34. Oglebay Good Zoo (2018)
35. Wildwood Zoo (2022)
36. Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary (sometime in the 1990’s, 2019)
37. Shalom Wildlife Zoo (2022 - twice)
38. Gatorland (2014)
39. Miller Park Zoo (2017, 2018)
40. Timbavati Wildlife Park (2022)
41. Scovill Zoo (2018)
42. Ochsner Park Zoo (2020, 2022)
43. Lincoln Park Zoo (Manitowoc) (2016)
44. Alameda Park Zoo (2015)
45. Henson Robinson Zoo (2017)
46. Menominee Park Zoo (2016)
47. DeYoung Family Zoo (2016)
48. Siegfried and Roy’s Secret Garden & Dolphin Habitat (2016) - Now Closed
49. Smithsonian’s National Zoo (2009)
50. Special Memories Zoo (2019) – Now Closed

Aquarium Rankings

1. Georgia Aquarium (2019)
2. SeaWorld Orlando (2008)
3. Shedd Aquarium (2002, 2015)
4. Dallas World Aquarium (2018)
5. National Mississippi River Museum & Aquarium (2022)
6. Shark Reef Aquarium at Mandalay Bay (2015)
7. Albuquerque Aquarium (2015)
8. Reiman Aquarium (2021)
9. Aquarium of Niagara (2011)

These are animal facilities that I have visited, but choose not to rank due to different factors. These include being in a totally different focus (such as Moorpark), not being open to the general public (White Oak), don’t remember them much (The Seas, Xcaret, among others), etc.

· Wildwood Wildlife Park Zoo & Safari (sometime in the 1990’s)
· The Seas with Nemo and Friends (2004, 2008)
· Xcaret Park - Wildlife Habitats (2006, 2007)*
· The Wilds (2008)
· Moorpark College: America’s Teaching Zoo (2012)
· Wild Florida (2014)
· White Oak Conservation Center (2014)
· Aquarium Restaurant in Nashville (2016)
· Safari Lake Geneva (2019 – 2022)
· International Crane Foundation (2021, 2022)
· Bear Country U.S.A. (2021)
· Reptile Gardens (2021)

 

[15399]

49. Smithsonian’s National Zoo (2009)

Is there a reason for ranking this zoo so low? I think most on here would rank it higher amongst all US Zoos, let alone zoos visited. I'd be curious to hear what your perception of this zoo was that led to such a low ranking.

 

[RIPPompadour]

I am able to make a concerted effort to travel more over the next two years, so I thought I’d record my starting point.

Zoos:
1. San Diego (2017)
2. Woodland Park (2017, 2019, 2022)
3. Toronto (2015)
4. Oregon (2018)
5. Fresno Chaffee (2017)
6. Calgary (2015, 2018)
7. Point Defiance (2019)
8. Assiniboine Park (2015, 2018)
9. Montreal Biodôme (2015)
10. Granby Zoo (2015)
11. Greater Vancouver Zoo (Annual)
12. Edmonton Valley (2015)


Aquariums:
1. Oregon Coast (2018)
2. Vancouver (Annual)
3. Ripley’s Aquarium of Canada (2015)
4. Seattle (2017, 2019)
5. Shaw Centre Sidney (Alt. Annual)
6. Ucluelet (Alt. Annual)
7. MarineLand 2015
Unranked: SeaWorld San Diego (2009).

Others:
Bloedel Conservatory (Monthly)
Grouse Mountain (Semi-Annual)

 

[Lucas Lang]

This is my first year study in U.S., so I do not have many zoo & aquarium to list.

Zoo:
1, Bronx Zoo(2022)
2, San Diego Zoo(2022)
3, Woodland Park Zoo(2022)
4, Brookfield Zoo(2022)
5, Los Angeles Zoo(2022)
6, Detroit Zoo(2022)
7, Toledo Zoo(2022)
8, Columbus Zoo(2022)
9, Queens Zoo(2022)
10, Prospect Park Zoo(2022)
11, Central Park Zoo(2022)

Unranked: I visited these during the exchange semester, and I do not sure how it is now.
San Francisco Zoo(2019)
California Academy of Sciences(2019)

Aquarium:
1, Monterey Bay Aquarium(2019)
2, Aquarium of Pacific(2022)
3, Belle Isle Aquarium(2022)

 

[SwampDonkey]

After visiting a few more places last year, I would like to update and rearrange a few places:

I am going to list my top 10 and the full list below it. My list would probably be different if I visited these places again. For example Miami, I went around 7 months after Hurricane Andrew, so it was still a mess (and that was a long time ago) and it has been decades since I went to Jacksonville or Audubon. (date of last visit)

Typical Zoos:
1. San Diego Zoo Safari Park (1996) / Columbus Zoo (2022)*
2. San Diego Zoo (2015)
3. Wildlife World Zoo (2022)
4. NC Zoo (2021)
5. Zoo Tampa (2023)
6. National Zoo (2022)
7. Phoenix Zoo (2022)
8. Jacksonville Zoo (2004)
9. Audubon Zoo (1998)
10. Central Florida Zoo (2022)

Aquariums:
1. Georgia Aquarium (2013)
2. Monterey Bay Aquarium (2012)
3. Florida Aquarium (2023)
4. OdySea Aquarium (2022)
5. New England Aquarium (2013)
6. Seattle Aquarium (2014)
7. Audubon Aquarium of the Americas (1998)
8. Dallas World Aquarium (2012)
9. Alaska Sea life Center (2001)
10. SeaLife Orlando (2022)

Non-typical Zoological parks and theme parks:
1. SeaWorld Orlando
2. Sylvan Heights Bird Park (2023)
3. Xcaret (2022)
4. Busch Gardens (2023)
5. DAK (2022)
6. DAK Lodge (2022)
7. Gatorland (2020)

My full list:

Spoiler

Arizona -

1. Odysea Aquarium
2. Phoenix Zoo
3. Wildlife World Zoo, Aquarium and Safari Park
   
   Alaska -
4. Alaska Sea life Center
   
   California -
5. San Diego Zoo
6. San Diego Wild Animal Park
7. Birch Aquarium
8. Aquarium of the Pacific
9. San Francisco Zoo
10. Monterey Bay Aquarium
    
    Florida -
11. Zoo Tampa
12. Safari Wilderness
13. Disney's Animal Kingdom
14. Disney's Animal Kingdom Lodge
    
15. Gulf Breeze Zoo
16. Gatorland
17. Gatorama
18. Gator Jungle (closed)
19. Wild Florida
20. Jacksonville Zoo
21. Zoo Miami (it was Miami Metro Zoo at the time)
22. Miami Seaquarium
23. Seaworld Orlando
24. Sealife Orlando
25. Discovery Cove
26. Florida Aquarium
27. Clearwater Marine Aquarium
28. Mote Marine Aquarium
29. Tarpon Springs Aquarium (the old location)
30. Sarasota Jungle Gardens
31. Central Florida Zoo
32. Key West Aquarium
33. Lion Country Safari
34. Busch Gardens Tampa
35. Marineland Florida
    
    Georgia -
36. Georgia Aquarium
    
    Illinois -
37. Lincoln Park Zoo
    
    Louisiana -
38. Audubon Zoo
39. Audubon Aquarium of the Americas
    
    Massachusetts -
40. New England Aquarium
    
    Maine -
41. Maine State Aquarium
    
    New Jersey -
42. Adventure Aquarium
    
    North Carolina -
43. North Carolina Zoo
44. Grandfather Mountain
45. Sylvan Heights Bird Park
46. North Carolina Estuarium
    
    Pennsylvania -
    
47. Philadelphia Zoo
    
    New York -
48. Long Island Aquarium
49. Central Park Zoo
    
    Tennessee -
50. Rainforest Adventures
    
    Texas -
51. Downtown Houston Aquarium
52. Dallas World Aquarium
53. Austin Nature and Science Center
54. Austin Zoo
    
    Washington -
55. Seattle Aquarium
    
    Washington DC -
56. National Zoo
    
    Canada:
57. Vancouver Aquarium
    
    Mexico:
58. Xcaret
    
    Cayman Islands:
    
59. Cayman Turtle Farm and Zoo

Non-North American:
Sao Paulo Zoo
London Zoo
Parc Zoologique de Paris
Antwerp Zoo
Aquatopia Antwerp (closed)
Hoedspruit Endangered Species Center
Chongqing Zoo
Tiger Kingdom Chiang Mai

* I am giving my #1 zoo a tie as it has been so long since I was in the safari park and I know it has changed a lot since that time. I think that it would fall on the list if and when I go back.

 

[Milwaukee Man]

Is there a reason for ranking this zoo so low? I think most on here would rank it higher amongst all US Zoos, let alone zoos visited. I'd be curious to hear what your perception of this zoo was that led to such a low ranking.

Admittedly, most of this is because I did not have a very good experience with my visit to this Zoo. Due to other circumstances, I ended up not arriving until the afternoon, so not a lot of time to see the Zoo - only saw about half of the establishment. Some of the exhibitry was unimpressive, such as the Elephant House (thankfully now the “Elephant Trails” section) and some repetitive exhibits in Small Mammals House. I also found the layout to not be as successful both due to the numerous paths that can lead to bypassing some major exhibits (at least in my case), and the big hill which I usually wouldn't mind, but there isn't any transportation to assist in the climb after a long visit. Lastly, and perhaps most significant, there were tons of empty exhibits, and not just animals-hard-to-find-in-a-naturalistic-exhibit empty (that's usually fine with me), but empty for seemingly odd reasons. For instance, the lions and tigers were only out for six hours a day, with two hours at both the end and start of the day when they aren't out; the same went for Amazonia; the jungle walkthrough was closed for maintenance at the time, which was a shame as the area got off to a promising start with the research hut and aquatic exhibits. Neither of these cases I wasn't aware of until I arrived at these particular exhibits in the late afternoon.

There are a number of positives I do have for Smithsonian though. Asia Trail and the now-closed Invertebrate House are excellent exhibit areas with some of the best-of-their-kind exhibits around (like sloth bear and Asian small-clawed otter), the Think Tank seemed like a unique section, it was a thrill to see giant pandas and an active Komodo dragon for the first time, and I've learned overtime about the Zoo's fantastic conservation contributions.

I get the feeling I just hit a stroke of bad luck and/or it was a major off day since this Zoo does have a good standing on this site it seems. In addition, there's been a lot of construction taking place and the end results of these projects look quite good based on photos. With all this said, I do hope to go back one day, and assuming things go better, I'm confident my opinion on this Zoo will change for the better.

 

[ZooElephantMan]

Admittedly, most of this is because I did not have a very good experience with my visit to this Zoo. Due to other circumstances, I ended up not arriving until the afternoon, so not a lot of time to see the Zoo - only saw about half of the establishment. Some of the exhibitry was unimpressive, such as the Elephant House (thankfully now the “Elephant Trails” section) and some repetitive exhibits in Small Mammals House. I also found the layout to not be as successful both due to the numerous paths that can lead to bypassing some major exhibits (at least in my case), and the big hill which I usually wouldn't mind, but there isn't any transportation to assist in the climb after a long visit. Lastly, and perhaps most significant, there were tons of empty exhibits, and not just animals-hard-to-find-in-a-naturalistic-exhibit empty (that's usually fine with me), but empty for seemingly odd reasons. For instance, the lions and tigers were only out for six hours a day, with two hours at both the end and start of the day when they aren't out; the same went for Amazonia; the jungle walkthrough was closed for maintenance at the time, which was a shame as the area got off to a promising start with the research hut and aquatic exhibits. Neither of these cases I wasn't aware of until I arrived at these particular exhibits in the late afternoon.

There are a number of positives I do have for Smithsonian though. Asia Trail and the now-closed Invertebrate House are excellent exhibit areas with some of the best-of-their-kind exhibits around (like sloth bear and Asian small-clawed otter), the Think Tank seemed like a unique section, it was a thrill to see giant pandas and an active Komodo dragon for the first time, and I've learned overtime about the Zoo's fantastic conservation contributions.

I get the feeling I just hit a stroke of bad luck and/or it was a major off day since this Zoo does have a good standing on this site it seems. In addition, there's been a lot of construction taking place and the end results of these projects look quite good based on photos. With all this said, I do hope to go back one day, and assuming things go better, I'm confident my opinion on this Zoo will change for the better.

I had a similar experience when I visited the National Zoo for the first time in the winter of 2011. Almost everything was off-exhibit or closed, and it was not a very positive experience. Then, I returned 6 years later and had such a great visit that the zoo entered my top 5 of all time! In addition to some of the zoo's strong exhibits (like Asia Trail, Elephant Trails, and the O-Line), their scientific research and conservation efforts make the place rank highly for me.

 

[Blackleopard207]

1) San Diego Zoo
2) San Diego Zoo Safari Park
3) Fresno Chaffee Zoo
4) Zoo Knoxville
5) San Francisco Zoo
6) Oakland Zoo
7) Zoo Boise
8) Santa Barbara Zoo
10) Sacramento Zoo
11) Monterey Zoo
12) Micke Grove Zoo

I’ve also been to the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
Zoo Boise’s Gorongosa National Park exhibit was pretty nice. It doesn’t have a huge species count, but it had some endangered species I haven’t seen at other zoos I’ve been to like striped hyenas and African wild dogs.

I think my favorite zoo exhibit I’ve seen would have to be Asian Trek at Zoo Knoxville or Fresno Zoo’s African Adventure. I would probably say one of San Diego’s, but I haven’t been there since I was a little kid.