Milwaukee County Zoo Milwaukee County Zoo News 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
Corangurilla said:
Two big reasons:
  1. A lot of the exhibits are either outdated or ugly. The bear grottos might be the worst habitats in any "big name" American zoo, Primates of the World looks like a sterile laboratory (which isn't a good thing for a primate habitat to remind you of), and the outdoor Bonobo habitat is more of a habitrail. I do like the otter habitat, though, and I will defend the elephant and hippo habitats. I've never been in the aviary either because I forgot it (2021) or it closed right when I got there (2022 bird flu).
  2. The layout is awful. There's so much empty space between habitats, particularly between Small Mammals and North America. Meanwhile, every "ABC" mammal that isn't a primate or bear is crammed into a vaguely shoeprint-shaped area that is painful to navigate (at least for me). The map is also supremely dull, which doesn't help.
There are some positives, though. I like that you can see the big cats indoors. There aren't a lot of zoos in the US that let you do that. As I've said, I do like the otter, elephant, and hippo habitats, and I'm a sucker for nocturnal houses.
I guess Milwaukee was the first new zoo I visited with a "Zoochatter" mindset, which is why I'm so down on it. I don't hate it, it's just the first zoo I didn't feel amazed by.
Click to expand...

Those are extremely valid points. There is no doubt that Milwaukee is an old zoo. I'm a sucker for old zoos, so I find Milwaukee appealing. From what I have gathered online, funding is a big issue for Milwaukee, and it has been the reason why some of the newer exhibits aren't as grand as they were originally imagined to be.

I don't remember when the exact plans for constructing the new rhino exhibit were, but I'd imagine it'll be relatively soon, so that will finish up all of the new Africa-themed exhibits. It also looks like they may be constructing new outdoor bonobo exhibits, which would be amazing, so let's cross our fingers that they plan on doing that soon!

There used to be talk about an Alaska-themed area where the current North American exhibits are, so I wouldn't mind if they did that after they finished the bonobo and Africa exhibits.

I don't know if Milwaukee would impeach their forested areas much, as it seems to be something they are proud of, but I totally get why you are frustrated with it.

I am also a fan of the new River Otter exhibit, and I think it is a great example of what Milwaukee is evolving into. I also think that the elephant and hippo expansions, while not being as grand as they were originally planned to be, are a big step up from their former exhibits.

The Aviary building is quite nice. I don't know a ton about bird husbandry, but Milwaukee participates in a ton of bird SSPs, and they seem to be quite successful in their bird department.
 
Corangurilla said:
Two big reasons:
  1. A lot of the exhibits are either outdated or ugly. The bear grottos might be the worst habitats in any "big name" American zoo, Primates of the World looks like a sterile laboratory (which isn't a good thing for a primate habitat to remind you of), and the outdoor Bonobo habitat is more of a habitrail. I do like the otter habitat, though, and I will defend the elephant and hippo habitats. I've never been in the aviary either because I forgot it (2021) or it closed right when I got there (2022 bird flu).
  2. The layout is awful. There's so much empty space between habitats, particularly between Small Mammals and North America. Meanwhile, every "ABC" mammal that isn't a primate or bear is crammed into a vaguely shoeprint-shaped area that is painful to navigate (at least for me). The map is also supremely dull, which doesn't help.
There are some positives, though. I like that you can see the big cats indoors. There aren't a lot of zoos in the US that let you do that. As I've said, I do like the otter, elephant, and hippo habitats, and I'm a sucker for nocturnal houses.
I guess Milwaukee was the first new zoo I visited with a "Zoochatter" mindset, which is why I'm so down on it. I don't hate it, it's just the first zoo I didn't feel amazed by.
Click to expand...
I personally love the spaced-out exhibits, since they have very high quality native forest between them. There aren't many forests of that high of quality left in the southeastern part of the state. They don't want to put anything there either, since there's a state threatened bird species nesting there (Acadian Flycatcher).

The aviary will change your opinion of the zoo, I think. It's easily the best part of the zoo and is one of the best aviary buildings on the continent.
 
Milwaukee's aviary is their crown jewel. I was comparing Milwaukee with another zoo a year or so ago on the board and I specifically put Milwaukee above it because they have the aviary as one truly great exhibit, while the other zoo in my mind had a fine collection but no single (or more) spectacular exhibit in my opinion. I do often feel I may have gone too easy on the zoo's other quirks. I hope you get to see it next trip and enjoy it properly. It is probably the most memorable bird experience I have had at any of three zoos I have visited bird buildings at.

With a zoochatter mindset, Milwaukee is lacking in many ways, but having first visited as a child, the old-style exhibits felt distinctive and unique and I was not able to recognize the welfare concerns some of them invoked. The polar bear grotto is notorious here as one of the worst polar bear exhibits in America, but I had a lovely time watching the seal and bear at the same time. With an adult mindset that moment would have been horrifying, but at the time, it was novel. This was also back when the zoo had moose and the Australia exhibits which were also memorable to me, and I was able to appreciate the spider monkeys and mandrill there better than exhibits closer to home.

As an adult I can better appreciate how poor a lot of those exhibits are, unfortunately, I'm just validating how an adult or zoochatter mindset can change a zoo experience.

The layout is awful. There's so much empty space between habitats, particularly between Small Mammals and North America. Meanwhile, every "ABC" mammal that isn't a primate or bear is crammed into a vaguely shoeprint-shaped area that is painful to navigate (at least for me). The map is also supremely dull, which doesn't help.
Click to expand...
I do want to agree with this a lot. It's my least favorite zoo map, and I can enjoy the wooded areas more today in theory, but as a kid moving from the north to the south of the zoo was a supremely boring experience. I've also never seen the sea lions or flamingos because they are out of the way if you do the primates, and I've probably missed a few other odd things. It's a weird, weird layout.

I've heard zoochatters complain about having to do a loop around the zoo at some places but Chicago's zoos and Milwaukee all avert that stereotype in such a way it gets easy to miss some exhibits without backtracking.
 
Another issue I have with Milwaukee is the predator-prey setup within the "shoeprint".
Yes, it's cool and also pretty rare in North America, but it's also a huge problem. What happens when they want to inevitably upgrade the cat habitats? Will the outer habitats with the herbivores have to go? Are the red pandas and snow leopards too close to stay during construction? This is the zoo exhibit equivalent of tangled headphone cords! Maybe this isn't as big of an issue as I think it is, but I don't like the knottiness of the predator/prey setup.
 
Corangurilla said:
Another issue I have with Milwaukee is the predator-prey setup within the "shoeprint".
Yes, it's cool and also pretty rare in North America, but it's also a huge problem. What happens when they want to inevitably upgrade the cat habitats? Will the outer habitats with the herbivores have to go? Are the red pandas and snow leopards too close to stay during construction? This is the zoo exhibit equivalent of tangled headphone cords! Maybe this isn't as big of an issue as I think it is, but I don't like the knottiness of the predator/prey setup.
Click to expand...
My first visit was before the 2005 renovation of the big cat exhibit and my subsequent visits were nearly all after. The red pandas did not even have an exhibit before that renovation, and were actually kept in the Small Mammal House and the Asia yard's moat. I actually really liked the second setup. The red panda and snow leopard exhibits were redone.

I can't find much online information on the renovation besides a press release about the addition of skylights, and "Our Feline Building is Closed Due to Renovation. All of our "big cats" have been moved to other AZA-accredited zoos throughout the country."

At that time, all of the surrounding outdoor exhibits were still open and unaffected by construction, however, the 'interior' of the horseshoe, where the snow leopards and pandas are now, was different. I can't attest to how though. I want to say I vaguely recall the original outdoor snow leopard exhibit being smaller.

You are correct that if they did a fuller renovation than the cats it would be severely affected.
 
As Milwaukee is my home zoo, it certainly does hold a place in my heart and will try to find the good in it while I can. However, I will not deny that some cases could be much better than the current set up.

*Backtracking: before Adventure Africa opened, it was actually fairly easy to walk a route without repeating one’s steps if you wished to see the whole zoo. Even Phase 1 and 2 opening it was possible - go past the hippos and river hogs; cut through Big Cat Country and around those predator-prey exhibits; walk through Adventure Africa; once you hit the seals, one can see the rest of North America and so on. With Phase 3 cutting off the current indoor pachyderm viewing, I feel like backtracking will become a recurring event if one wishes to not skip anything.

*Exhibitry: I am in full agreement that the Aviary is easily the best that Milwaukee has to offer, with Otter Passage and Macaque Island right behind. I’d also throw in exhibits for snow leopards, red pandas, North American hoofstock, prairie dogs, and (to a lesser extent) the Aquatic and Reptile Center as solid stand out exhibits. Everything else ranges from overall average (Adventure Africa and Predator-Prey for instance) to not so successful (Small Mammals and the bear exhibits for example). There is an overall trajectory of improvement in exhibitry however so far as seen by some new projects (even if some are not quite as strong as they could’ve been like Adventure Africa), relocations (ruffed lemurs moving from Small Mammals to Primates), and some new replacements (oryx in place of elephants). Hopefully this will change with the new director - seems like we’re off to a good start. :) By the way, great to hear about potential new outdoor bonobo habitats - hopefully they can take advantage of the surrounding forest without too much damage.

*Big Cats: I’ve always maintained the hope that Milwaukee will invest in expanding and modifying the lion, tiger, cheetah, and jaguar habitats into their respective prey enclosures. Combined with the neat indoor building, this would give us a full Big Cat Country. The prey would be dispersed into the following: most African animals can go to Adventure Africa (either a whole new savannah exhibit or, mostly likely, the “Impala Plains” section, but please expand and drastically renovate that exhibit first); most South American animals can go to the Primates complex to be modified into a jungle complex; and the camels can get a new habitat in a northern Asian complex if one is ever planned.

To sum it all up, I am rooting for my home zoo under the new management - there is the potential there with some successful exhibit quality and a nice setting. The animal collection is starting to make a bit of a comeback I think - all in the last year there was the arrival of the yak, oryx, de Brazza’s monkey, Provost’s squirrel, and brand-new Pygmy slow loris (thanks for that info by the way). Through some of these acquisitions, relocations, and new projects the overall exhibitry is improving (again, not quite as strong as it can be, but at least better than previous). Maybe we will have some exhibit complexes that come along and match the Aviary in terms of quality, or ones that take advantage of the forests well without hindering the space all that much. The Zoo is probably always going to have some constraints as it is county-owned, but I can only hope that financial backing and overall outlook can improve with the new direction, and it’s looking promising thus far. :)
 
Well said @Milwaukee Man I too love the idea of expanding the big cat exhibits into the prey exhibits, but there are some problems with that becoming a reality.
I think the two biggest factors that hold back the zoo are, and have always been, lack of funding. Tied to that, most of Milwaukee's exhibits were designed and built in the late 1950s-early 60s and still stand to this day. They were built indestructible, and to renovate them (especially the prey exhibits and the "horseshoe" in the middle of the zoo as a whole) would be more expensive than building around/fixing what is already there. This is especially true for the pachyderm mall and underground winter quarters for the prey animal exhibits. It's tough to renovate and work around 24inch thick concrete that's also underground. So lack of major funding and the zoo's archaic structures limit the zoo's abilities to make drastic changes in parts of the zoo that need it the most.
That being said, it doesn't mean the zoo isn't capable of creating great new exhibits. The Otter Passage is a highlight, and the Adventure Africa phases so far are functional and work well for what the zoo has. I honestly don't see Milwaukee ever opening an exhibit that is to the standard of San Diego or Omaha, but not every zoo can be San Diego or Omaha and there's nothing wrong with that. New is not always better, and just because an exhibit is old fashioned does not make it bad. To use the prey exhibits as an example, I do not think those exhibits are bad. They're spacious, functional, and while they are dated, I don't think they look bad or ugly.
Things do appear to be changing across the zoo, however, and I'm optimistic about its future and hope that the final phase of Adventure Africa is done well. I'm not sure if its just me and my perception, this website's discourse of Adventure Africa thus far (I know AA had higher hopes), or a mix of both, but I feel like they really need to knock it out of the park with the rhino exhibit. Nonetheless its an exciting time for the zoo, and we'll hopefully see some of the changes start happening soon!
 
Another thing I will say though - in an era where most AZA zoos are becoming very similar, Milwaukee's historic grottos at least stand out from the crowd and give the zoo a unique feeling. I feel like that at least has to count for something.
 
birdsandbats said:
Another thing I will say though - in an era where most AZA zoos are becoming very similar, Milwaukee's historic grottos at least stand out from the crowd and give the zoo a unique feeling. I feel like that at least has to count for something.
Click to expand...
I’d say that the predator-prey setups are a better example for that because they’re actually good.
Those “historic grottos” put a lot of emphasis on the “ic(k)” and “rot”.
 
The bear grottos are definitely more ugly eyesores than the predator-prey exhibits. Their only redeeming qualities are that the ones that are still in use are decently sized, provide some shade, and have some natural substrate in the form of small dirt pits cut into the concrete, as well as good-sized pools for the species they hold. They are a weaker part of the zoo and I'll be glad to see them hopefully go away whenever the North America section gets a remodel.
 
birdsandbats said:
Another thing I will say though - in an era where most AZA zoos are becoming very similar, Milwaukee's historic grottos at least stand out from the crowd and give the zoo a unique feeling. I feel like that at least has to count for something.
Click to expand...
It's probably this website's most potent question, I would say -- how much individual identity and unique experience counts towards a zoo or zoo exhibit, isolated from other factors. See also how some users find historic buildings of value while others would rather see them torn down. I don't think this is the place to take a strong side, but I do find it an interesting debate.

I would mention that when I visited in the 2000s, Milwaukee's "datedness" allowed it to feel rather cohesive and consistent, The indoor Australia and Pachyderm areas had similar architecture for example. The 2005 renovations all felt a step above but it felt somewhat unified as a zoo, compared to some at the time that had a mixture of fresh and old exhibits. I haven't had the pleasure to visit since before Otter Passage or Adventure Africa so I'm curious how that will all feel now.

Wild wolverine provided some valuable insights here. I completely forgot how many of the holding areas for animals are underground! I think it's worth comparing as well that Brookfield, which is probably better funded than Milwaukee, struggled for years to demolish the empty Baboon Island and has, twelve years on, kept the old concrete bear grottos simply boarded up... I'm not going to lie, I sometimes have wished they had found a way to keep those exhibit spaces in use, with how long they have sat there.
 
Reading through everyone's opinions has been quite interesting, and I happen to agree with all of you. As someone that has a strong interest in old zoos, the outdated style that Milwaukee currently has is quite appealing to me. I have seen photos of several old European zoos that weave their old architecture into new, suitable exhibits, and I'd love to see if Milwaukee come somehow pull that off. That way they do not have to put as much money into tearing down the old buildings.

Regarding the Big Cat Country/Predator-Prey exhibits, I'd personally love to see the zoo somehow keep all of these species. Overall, Milwaukee has such an interesting and dynamic collection, that every lost species is truly a shame.

Could someone remind me what the plans for the third phase of Adventure Africa were? I know that they plan on building new outdoor exhibits for the rhinos, as well as new indoor areas for the rhinos and hippos, but did they plan on tearing down the Pachyderm Mall? Would they keep the former elephant exhibit?
 
EsserWarrior said:
Could someone remind me what the plans for the third phase of Adventure Africa were? I know that they plan on building new outdoor exhibits for the rhinos, as well as new indoor areas for the rhinos and hippos, but did they plan on tearing down the Pachyderm Mall? Would they keep the former elephant exhibit?
Click to expand...
The zoo hasn't announced any official details of the plan yet; other than they're building new indoor exhibits for hippos & rhinos, and remodeling the old elephant yard and two yak yards into two outdoor exhibits. According to an Annual Appeal brochure the zoo sent out, they anticipate beginning construction in 2024.
I highly doubt that the Pachyderm Malls will be completely torn down. It would be nice to see, in my opinion, but my guess would be that they'll build the new exhibits around what's there, and use the current indoor exhibits for additional off-display housing
 
I am not an architect or an engineer. I’m just curious about something. If the architecture makes it impossible to practically expand the big cat habitats into the prey areas, could they just… build a bridge over the moat for the cats to walk on? Or fill in the most with dirt. They’d need to update some of the fencing, of course, but that seems a simpler solution than demolishing the concrete altogether.
 
Reading through what so many of you have written, I couldn't help myself agreeing and at times struggling with many of things that have been mentioned. Milwaukee has been my hometown zoo and for much of my life has been the only zoo that I have known. It hasn't been until the last 5-10 years that I have started to explore other institutions.

I think that it was previously mentioned that funding has been an issue for the zoo in modern times, but I will also say that the zoo didn't have direction for a very long time under the previous zoo director. I can't speak fully to how true that was but based on the state of the zoo and the last big zoo campaign they had, nothing really felt like it was pushing the zoo forward, more just maintaining the collection.

Many of us who have gone to the zoo in recent years will see the drastic difference between the new entrance with the otters and phase 1& 2 of adventure Africa. The zoo could make great exhibits but in recent years have constantly fallen short. Some might argue that the otter area is something great, but whereas the exhibit for the animals are great, the area itself is terribly designed and feels gated from the rest of the zoo.

Phase 1 & 2 of AA, has been riddled with short comings because the needed to get exhibits up otherwise risk loosing the animals or potentially the funding. The zoo had needed to get the elephants in a new exhibit and received extension(s) to build a new one. Once the new one was up they cut corners, they cut out the bridge that was suppose to connect the new savannah area to the elephant exhibit, they also didn't put in the water filtration system that was suppose to go in to the outdoor pool so the elephants could use the yard for as long as they could during the warmer months. Not to mention the hippo area is not really big enough to house several hippos at the same time or a breeding program.

In my opinion the zoo has been stuck in a rock an a hard place under the previous administration, improving just enough but also not making substantial change. They have some awesome programs but even some of those exhibits need to be updated, like the bonobos, and the aviary (don't kill me for saying it, it does need a refresh because I don't think its been touched since it opened, and a small refresh could make it even better).

I do have hope that the zoo will be changing for the better under the new zoo director, however I think change is going to be slow, due to money and several members of the previous administration are still there too. Though seeing things like a paint job on the railings around the zoo last summer and them finally removing the TV from the former shark camera experience. Not to mention filling in/modifying exhibits in order to fill exhibit space that has been left empty with appropriate animals for its space.

I do hope that one day that they get around to expanding the big cat area more and giving them more room to roam, however with the current master plan (which I'm not sure how much is going to be followed going forward) doesn't have plans to be renovated or changed.

Milwaukee zoo to best some it up is has one foot in the past and one struggling to stand in the future, while appreciating the forest that it resides in. That being said, being able to understand that will help you at the very least appreciate the zoo for what it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top