Mega-Budget American Zoo Exhibits

[amur leopard]

How is that offensive??

Do you know what erosion actually is?

1. Because they has taken something that I like, which they doesn't really know about and criticised it for being something that it isn't.

2. Yes I do. It is a natural process and takes place everywhere on Earth bar nowhere. Therefore I don't see the criticism?

 

[ThylacineAlive]

1. Because they has taken something that I like, which they doesn't really know about and criticised it for being something that it isn't.

So therefore it is offensive to the French?

Also, and I mean this as helpfully and constructively as I can be, but perhaps you might want to take your own advice (quoted both above and below) before the next time you post a massive list of photos of enclosures you've never seen and know nothing about and post declarations of their quality..

Please do not make such bold comments if you actually have no idea how nice the exhibit is.

~Thylo

 

[TeaLovingDave]

. It is not severely overgrazed, it has never been home to any livestock.

Other than Barbary sheep, Barbary macaques and Himalayan blue sheep at a bare minimum

Because they has taken something that I like, which they doesn't really know about and criticised it for being something that it isn't.

I love the insinuation that a) if you love an exhibit it's beyond reproach and b) there is no possible way the user you are replying to could have any idea about said exhibit

 

[amur leopard]

I love the insinuation that a) if you love an exhibit it's beyond reproach and b) there is no possible way the user you are replying to could have any idea about said exhibit

a) I was not insinuating that it is beyond reproach, I was just saying that it didn't warrant the criticism it was getting.
b) It is highly unlikely.

Do you have any criticisms?

 

[Zooplantman]

It was an interesting thread while it lasted

 

[Zooplantman]

For example, both Bronx and Omaha opened similar Madagascar exhibits less than 2 years apart, and these two exhibits are quite equal in quality and enjoyment -- but Bronx had to pay $62m, while Omaha paid $10m.

It must be pointed out that the Bronx Zoo exhibit costs were probably more about preserving a century-old building then simply whacking together a lemur exhibit.
Apples to oranges

 

[Anniella]

Yes, yes, yes! In my opinion, conservation should be the primary goal of any zoo. While many zoos say it is (even some lousy roadside zoos with zero conservation or education value), very few put their money where their mouths are. The fact that the average donation to field conservation within the AZA is just over 2% of annual operating budget is appalling. I mean really these facilities should be disgusted with themselves. I think the AZA should enforce a mandatory 5% as a requirement for accreditation (and even that amount is too low in my opinion, but it's a start).

And the great thing about conservation is it's actually quite encompassing.

I don't expect the smaller AZA facilities in smaller urban and rural areas to have as much money go to conservation as the big guys, but they can still do their part. Nor does it have to be protecting some foreign rainforest or endangered species halfway across the world. Conservation can be local, too. They can do head start programs for threatened native turtles, amphibians, fish, etc. They can protect or improve local habitats. They can rehabilitate injured or orphaned wildlife (in ways that don't compromise the health of their collections, of course).

If I were AZA, I'd also really, really emphasize amphibian conservation and encourage all member zoos to incorporate threatened amphibians conservation at their facilities, maybe even showing the behind-the-scenes work areas to the public (like at LA Zoo's LAIR, for instance), so they can see species being saved. Plus, amphibians are appropriate for both zoos and aquariums, and they cost less to maintain than many other animals, making them an ideal group of animals for all AZA members to put more effort into on while still allowing plenty of room for other threatened species.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Do you have any criticisms?

Given the fact that judging from the photographs it is an objective fact that the soil in the paddock is thin and eroded, and you yourself said that erosion is "a natural process and takes place everywhere on Earth bar nowhere" you can hardly turn around and say that stating this fact is unwarranted and offensive not to mention the fact that your reason for claiming that calling it overgrazed is untrue is to claim it has never held any livestock..... which as I noted above it self-evidently does and did.

The exhibit is indeed pretty large - which is never a bad thing where caprines are concerned in my opinion - although it could do with rather more opportunities for the inhabitants to climb or otherwise make use of steep terrain. @reduakari never denied this, and in fact he explicitly acknowledged that it is a large enclosure..... all he did was say it was not attractive, and you took this as a vile calumny.

On another note......

if you knew anything at all about the South of France the landscape is almost entirely made up of chalky ground with gravel and rubble and covered with pines and other Mediterranean tree species.

The vast majority of the geological bedrock of southern France is actually a mixture of mudstones and conglomerate, gneiss and schist, with granitic and basaltic extrusions in the Alps and Pyrenees - although there *are* areas of limestone and marl in some regions, especially the foothills of the Pyrenees and Languedoc, southern France is nowhere near "almost entirely made up" of such landscapes.

 

[AmbikaFan]

.... all he did was say it was not attractive, and you took this as a vile calumny.
.

Just when things look sour, someone comes along and uses language in such a way as to make the spirit soar!

 

[Batto]

If I were AZA, I'd also really, really emphasize amphibian conservation and encourage all member zoos to incorporate threatened amphibians conservation at their facilities, maybe even showing the behind-the-scenes work areas to the public

My apologies if this will lead further OT, but I don't think that your idea is as promising and productive as it appears to be in the first place. I once attended a very interesting university discussion on this very topic. The bottom line:
"Normal" zoos are actually not the best place for the ex-situ breeding of endangered amphibians. The chances of interspecific disease spread is higher than in specialised facilities due to housing / showcasing various species from all the over the world in one place. There are not a lot of zookeepers who are truly specialised in amphibian care. Most are trained to work with mammals and birds; amphibians are not really their focus, as, with a few exceptions, amphibians do not rank highly in the "zoo hierarchy". To decrease the likeliness of disease transfer, you would not only have to house the endangered amphibian species completely separately from the "common" animals, but you would also need a specialised staff that should not intermingle with the "normal" staff. Some endangered amphibians have high husbandry standards that require high quality technology and people experienced in using that correctly. I doubt that most smaller zoos could afford this on a permanent base, especially for a group of species that are not really crowd pleasers. Furthering local in-situ amphibian conservation on zoo grounds and beyond might be more doable for zoos with a tighter budget, but this also needs people in charge who know their way around amphibians.

 

[amur leopard]

Given the fact that judging from the photographs it is an objective fact that the soil in the paddock is thin and eroded, and you yourself said that erosion is "a natural process and takes place everywhere on Earth bar nowhere" you can hardly turn around and say that stating this fact is unwarranted and offensive not to mention the fact that your reason for claiming that calling it overgrazed is untrue is to claim it has never held any livestock..... which as I noted above it self-evidently does and did.

The exhibit is indeed pretty large - which is never a bad thing where caprines are concerned in my opinion - although it could do with rather more opportunities for the inhabitants to climb or otherwise make use of steep terrain. @reduakari never denied this, and in fact he explicitly acknowledged that it is a large enclosure..... all he did was say it was not attractive, and you took this as a vile calumny.

I am sorry for derailing this thread. However, it has not been overgrazed because there was nothing to graze on in the first place. Secondly, the area around Montpellier is almost all limestone (Pyrenees and Alps are nowhere near the area concerned), and I previously noted that the area to the left of the image is much steeper and has a small cliff face.

I still don't understand what the problem is with erosion.

 

[Batto]

there was nothing to graze on in the first place.

which might, mind you, not be the best basis for animals that are naturally inclined to graze?

 

[lintworm]

I am sorry for derailing this thread. However, it has not been overgrazed because there was nothing to graze on in the first place. Secondly, the area around Montpellier is almost all limestone (Pyrenees and Alps are nowhere near the area concerned), and I previously noted that the area to the left of the image is much steeper and has a small cliff face.

I still don't understand what the problem is with erosion.

Let me weigh in as an ecologist.

That there is no vegetation means that it is overgrazed, in a natural state there would be grasses and forbs in such a landscape. How you describe it is very much describing an overgrazed system.

Stocking levels in a zoo will always be higher than in a natural system. It is the herbaceous layer that plays a big roil in soil stability as well, especially when there are perennial species. Without such a layer (as is the case here) and high density of large mammals (as is also the case in a zoo), you can expect serious erosion of the top soil, not only by trampling but also during heavy rains.

We are not trying to bully you, but you have to be aware you are not talking to other teenagers, but in quite some cases to professionals with, sometimes decades, of experience in in zoo design or in my case ecology. Trying to be smart then generally does not work, as others can clearly see what is wrong. Having had science classes in high school does not make someone an expert, it is merely an introduction to most fields. Nobody is saying that you cannot contribute to the forum without a degree, but it is important to acknowledge the limitations of one's knowledge.

 

[snowleopard]

A major factor, in terms of cost, when looking at the almost 140 zoo exhibits on the list are the species being showcased. I counted all of the exhibits that feature elephants and I reached the conclusion that there are 22 elephant enclosures on the list. At the top end of that range is probably Oregon Zoo's 'Elephant Lands', which cost $57 million and arguably isn't as impressive as Reid Park Zoo's 'Expedition Tanzania', which cost only $8.5 million and didn't even qualify for my extensive list. Anyone wishing to build an exhibit for elephants in the U.S. these days has to set aside at least 2 acres, or in some cases 5-10 acres, for the project just for the animals. That doesn't always include a barn of a minimum of 10,000 square feet in size, or expensive gunite mud-banks that are simulated to look real, or thick cables to ring around the enclosure. Elephants are huge animals that cost a lot to house and American zoos have exhibits that are large and impressive as there has been a revolution in the scope of elephant exhibits in the past 20 years in the country.

After the 22 elephant exhibits, the next major highlight from my list would be pinnipeds. I counted 15 exhibits that feature pinnipeds, mainly California Sea Lions which is intriguing as that species is not endangered and in fact relatively common along U.S. coastlines. Underwater viewing is the way to go with seals and sea lions, with tunnels, filtration systems, theatre-style seats, etc., all costing a fortune. Just in the year 2020 we have Columbus Zoo opening Adventure Cove ($40 million), Como Park Zoo opening Como Harbor ($20 million) and Omaha opening their own $27 million California Sea Lion project that will include a wave machine and will likely be the largest pinniped exhibit in the nation. That's 3 pinniped projects that will all open within months of each other and the total cost will be almost $90 million.

After elephants and pinnipeds, the next major trend that I noticed was a total of 12 Polar Bear exhibits and if I'm not mistaken every single one of those dozen exhibits has underwater viewing windows. I know that when I was in Europe there were some Polar Bear exhibits that lacked underwater viewing areas, but in American zoos it is normal for every single Polar Bear exhibit to have large, impressive underwater viewing windows, massively expensive filtration systems that keep the water crystal-clear (no green algae clogging the windows like at Ouwehands in Rhenen, Netherlands) and all of that costs a fortune.

Elephants, pinnipeds and Polar Bears account for almost 50 exhibits on my list and those animals all require husbandry that is incredibly expensive. Taking that into account, then it makes sense that some of the eye-watering prices on these American exhibits cost as much as they do. That is especially true when one considers that quite often a U.S. zoo will add on some new lavatories/bathrooms to the side of an exhibit, or a small gift shop to bring in extra revenue, or even full-size restaurants. As pointed out before, a new animal exhibit is an opportunity to add in free drinking fountains or update signs in the area as part of the final price tag.

Finally, anything to do with water costs an absolute fortune. Elephants, pinnipeds and Polar Bears all require substantial water sources, usually filtered to be crystal-clear and without the dense, green algae that is common in European underwater viewing in the summer months. As much as I loved my experience overseas, and I intend to go back to Europe as soon as I can, I cannot understand the point of expensive underwater viewing if a visitor cannot even see the animals diving through the water. On my list, there are costly water-based exhibits such as Indianapolis Zoo's Dolphin Adventure Dome ($10 million), the National Aquarium's Australian exhibit ($75 million), Shedd Aquarium's Oceanarium renovation ($50 million), Point Defiance Zoo's brand-new aquarium ($52 million) and nothing can top New York Aquarium's $158 million 'Sharks!' addition.

Coming up in the near future, aquatic additions such as Georgia Aquarium's Predators expansion ($100 million or more), Seattle Aquarium's Ocean gallery expansion (anywhere from $100-130 million and due to open in 2023) and Kansas City Zoo's proposed Aquarium (at least $75 million) are showing that prices are perhaps continuing to trend upwards. When will an American zoo open an exhibit complex that hits the $200 million mark?

Lastly, I will point out that quite often there is a "if you build it, they will come" mentality with American zoos. Minnesota spent $24 million on the incredible Russia's Grizzly Coast in 2008 and attendance went through the roof. San Diego built the almost $70 million Africa Rocks and last year the zoo had 4 million visitors for the first time ever...a record-breaking achievement. When Omaha, the biggest spenders of all, opened the Lied Jungle back in 1992 the zoo's annual attendance immediately doubled and that was the catalyst for the zoo to continue to add mega-complexes every few years. Now there are many zoo enthusiasts that rate Omaha as perhaps one of the 5-10 best zoos on the planet...unthinkable pre-1992. I could probably give 100 examples of a zoo breaking its budget to construct a major new exhibit and then setting all-time attendance records. If a zoo is fortunate enough to be able to raise funds for a splashy new exhibit then it is definitely worth doing so as visitors will then pour through the entrance gate. If zoos spend the money then it pays off with increased visitation levels and a much higher profile. In some cases a major exhibit can even be a problem, as then a zoo becomes so popular that immediately things like parking, bathrooms, cafeterias, etc., all have to be upgraded. It's a domino effect of success.

 

[sooty mangabey]

Elephants, pinnipeds and Polar Bears account for almost 50 exhibits on my list and those animals all require husbandry that is incredibly expensive. Taking that into account, then it makes sense that some of the eye-watering prices on these American exhibits cost as much as they do.

While I agree with much of what you write here, I disagree with this point: I'm not sure that the husbandry, or even the display, of these animals does need to be so expensive - while acknowledging that it is going to cost a great deal more than the husbandry or display of a Meerkat colony.

I've had the pleasure of seeing Columbus's Polar Frontier - on the list above - and while there is much about it which is impressive, i found it - much like the rest fo Columbus Zoo - to be a little dull, a little lacking in something. Conversely, the Polar Bear exhibits at the Highland Wildlife Park, and to a lesser extent the Yorkshire Wildlife Park, which would have cost but a fraction of the sums listed above, are really fabulous and allow for a level of engagement with the animals within that is exceptional. An interested visitor would be able to spend many, many hours at such an exhibit.

Similarly, the African Elephant exhibit at Cabarceno, in Spain, is genuinely breathtaking. I don't know its construction cost, but I cannot imagine that it would have been anything approaching the costs listed above. Conversely, Toledo's $15 million exhibit, Cleveland's $25 million exhibit, LA's $42 million thing and San Diego's $45 million effort - they're all fine (and Cleveland's maybe more than fine) but they're certainly not breathtaking. (And yes, I appreciate that those costs also brought about there developments alongside the elephant-y bits).

In conclusion, money is great - and it makes it easier to build spectacular exhibits. But the correlation between low costs and low quality is by no means clear!

 

[Zooplantman]

I still don't understand what the problem is with erosion.

Adding to what lintworm wrote (above) erosion is the wearing or washing away of soil. On the one hand any topsoil that was present and that would have sustained plant life is removed leaving the landscape more barren than before, and on the the other hand erosion can result in more severely uneven terrain, even gullies, making the enclosure more difficult or even hazardous for animals and keepers to use. Proper land management aims to reduce or even eliminate erosion for the sake of sustainability, safety, soil conservation and maintenance expense.

 

[Arizona Docent]

Interesting about the species that make the bulk of the exhibits. I also agree with @sooty mangabey that most multi-million dollar elephant exhibits are (in my opinion) lackluster and I would even call them insufficient. Even my local Reid Park Zoo, which @snowleopard highly regards, is lacking in some ways (the biggest of which is the elephants only get half of the 7 acres and visitors get the other half; the elephants should have access to 6 of the 7 acres, not the 3 1/2 they have). If @snowleopard compiles a similar list in five years or so, I think we will see the majority of the new multi-million dollar exhibits focused on penguins.

 

[snowleopard]

I went through the list again and came up with 8 penguin exhibits, which as @Arizona Docent pointed out is also a focus of modern American zoos. Penguins are superstar, popular animals and their aquatic environment costs a lot of money to build and maintain. There are also at least 6-7 gorilla exhibits on the list, another expensive animal to have in a zoo.

In regards to your note about elephants, @Arizona Docent you'd be surprised to see loads of what you would regard as 'tiny' elephant exhibits in European zoos. Your neighbourhood Reid Park Zoo in Arizona has its 7-acre elephant complex and you correctly point out that approximately 3.5 acres of that space is set aside as an area for elephants. I know that the elephant herd at Reid Park has access to those 3.5 acres for 23 hours per day, year-round, as the animals are only brought into the barn during severe weather (which is almost never) and for a single hour per day. Last summer I personally saw 29 different elephant exhibits in my month-long European trek and how many of those exhibits would be 3.5 acres in size? Maybe only 3 out of 29? American zoos have much larger elephant enclosures than their European counterparts (at least in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands)...although there are a number of notable exceptions to that rule. Cabarceno, in Spain, has something like 14 acres just for elephants!

@sooty mangabey I'd love to visit both Yorkshire Wildlife Park and Highland Wildlife Park one day to see how those Polar Bear exhibits hold up in terms of lacking underwater viewing options. Maybe I'd think that they were brilliant exhibits! Here is a Polar Bear sight that I found extraordinary when I was at Monde Sauvage in Belgium:

 

[Zooplantman]

Last summer I personally saw 29 different elephant exhibits in my month-long European trek and how many of those exhibits would be 3.5 acres in size? Maybe only 3 out of 29? American zoos have much larger elephant enclosures than their European counterparts (at least in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands)...although there are a number of notable exceptions to that rule. Cabarceno, in Spain, has something like 14 acres just for elephants!

When discussing elephant enclosures I believe it is important to discuss herd size along with enclosure size. The acreage info without herd size does not lead to an understanding of the situation. This is, of course, true of many other species as well

 

[Andrew Swales]

If @snowleopard compiles a similar list in five years or so, I think we will see the majority of the new multi-million dollar exhibits focused on penguins.

Penguin exhibits are hugely expensive to build, regardless of where - and penguin colonies in the UK at least, are subject to being wiped out by disease. A considerable risk, to balance their popularity... So much plant investment is needed, to provide good water - and the final exhibit is only the tip-of-the-iceberg. It has rightly been pointed out here before - but the difference in water quality between NA and European under-water exhibits is often marked, and could explain some of the huge differences in build costs.