That is a BOLD statement. It's not often you hear an exhibit being labeled as the world's most overrated because they gave their animals a lot of space instead of stampbooking everything
~Thylo
Most overrated zoo
- Thread starter amur leopard
- Start date
That is a BOLD statement. It's not often you hear an exhibit being labeled as the world's most overrated because they gave their animals a lot of space instead of stampbooking everything
~Thylo
As much as I agree it's largely overrated and oversized, I don't think it's the most globally. There's a few more exhibits worldwide that carry that title more than the Arctic Ring of Life (though I don't disagree that a lot of it is wasted space 
)
)
I understand the point they are trying to bring here. Yes lots of space is good but if it’s too much space for the size of a zoo maybe the zoo shouldn’t be keeping that species and instead keep species that need less space. Also I can see why some would think of it as an eyesore being very barren and one half of the exhibit being concrete fake snow. I wouldn’t say the most overrated exhibit (depending one where you stand that could be elephant odyssey) but I understand why some don’t like it.That is a BOLD statement. It's not often you hear an exhibit being labeled as the world's most overrated because they gave their animals a lot of space instead of stampbooking everything
~Thylo
If I want to have a higher chance at seeing polar bears (as long as they're not off-exhibit), I can make a trip to Toledo.
I've never failed to see a polar bear at Detroit, even when the area was closed, but I have failed to see them at Toledo.
Thats odd, it seems like the opposite for me 
(though to be fair, they were off-exhibit the last few visits I made).
(though to be fair, they were off-exhibit the last few visits I made).
It's not just about the exhibit being large. It's the fact that it's an oversized exhibit in a zoo that is losing species every year and already had a problem with bad utilization of space. It would be like if Edinburgh tore down a whole quarter of the zoo and created the world's largest Meerkat exhibit - for like three Meerkats.That is a BOLD statement. It's not often you hear an exhibit being labeled as the world's most overrated because they gave their animals a lot of space instead of stampbooking everything
~Thylo
Is there another exhibit that is globally renowned as one of the best zoo exhibits that you don't think deserves the title?As much as I agree it's largely overrated and oversized, I don't think it's the most globally. There's a few more exhibits worldwide that carry that title more than the Arctic Ring of Life (though I don't disagree that a lot of it is wasted space
The International Orangutan Center from Indianapolis is definitely one.
I don't think anyone would list that one as one of the best zoo exhibits ever...
It is definitely one of the exhibits out there.
All jokes aside, while the inside portion is actually pretty good for what it is, the outside "habitats" (aside from the O-line) are downright horrendous. Here's a thought - why not demolish the Kombo Coaster and expand the outdoor habitat to create a more naturalistic setting? Maybe add a glass tunnel to maintain that pathway to the rest of the complex, that the orangutans can climb over into said naturalistic setting. Think Woodland Park meets Philadelphia in terms of access to mature trees, a "canopy" setting and a sweeping boardwalk. (And yes, that's another hot take, PECO Primate Reserve isn't that bad, though it could be improved significantly. But we'll get to that when we'll get to that.
)
That’s literally the point. The International Orangutan Center is considered, according to the zoo itself, “one of the most significant zoo exhibits in the world!” despite the fact that its a genuine eyesore and that overall its aesthetically atrocious. It was once nominated for being the best zoo exhibit in America, has won awards, and its also among the zoo’s largest attractions.
Indianapolis does. According to their marketing team it is "the most important zoo exhibit ever built".
See, but this is not what was being said previously about the exhibit. Prior to now, the complaints, as far as they are reading off to me (and presumably everyone who liked my post) seem to be complaining only about the habitat sizes and the fact that they chose to give their bears large habitats instead of making a bunch of smaller habitats to include more species.
These comments have zero indication that the issue is that the space required for keeping the bears is too great for what is reasonable/manageable for a zoo this size, but rather imply that the zoo is wrong simply for giving the bears a lot of space.
Now I have never been to the Detroit Zoo (I planned to go in 2020 and then again this summer but I don't think that's happening either...) so it will be hard for me to comment further, but from what I can tell, I don't really think the complaint that is now being raised is even fully valid. Detroit has quite a number of megafauna beyond Polar Bears--giraffe, bison, eland, two species of camel, zebra, rhinoceros, gorilla, chimpanzee, Lion, tiger, wolf, and even Grizzly Bears--yet no one seems to be making the claims that Detroit is not a big enough zoo to support these species. Judging purely off the zoo's map (which may not be giving an accurate portrait), Arctic Ring of Life is smaller than most, if not all of the portions of the zoo where those other species are kept.
Additionally, according to @Moebelle, the two Polar Bear yards combined are about 1.2 acres in size. The zoo's website states it is 125 acres in size so I don't think the issue is the Polar Bears taking up too much valuable space.. I did a quick gallery search for some of the other megafauna the zoos keeps, and to my surprise I found that several of them have similarly large habitats. In particular, the South American grassland looks massive and the Mexican Wolves have a 2 acre yard! So I'm not really sure why the combined 1.2 acre Polar Bear enclosures are talked about with such vitriol and claimed to be so oversized that they're single-handedly flushing out the rest of the zoo's collection while these other, larger habitats for other species go unmentioned.
As for other complaints lofted at the exhibit, lack of bear visibility and the unattractive appearance, I can't comment much as I haven't been. From photos, though, the pack ice habitat looks awful and the overuse of concrete I totally agree with. As for bear visibility, well all I can say is that it is not the bears' job to be fully visible for you. We all love animals and we'd all love to see them fully visible at their best angle, but part of what makes a zoo exhibit good is whether or not the animals have a choice to removed themselves from those picture perfect scenarios. Just because you don't see an animal using a specific portion of their habitat often during visitor hours, does not mean they don't use it and definitely doesn't mean they don't deserve to have it.
Please point to me where there is this general consensus that Arctic Ring of Life is one of the best zoo exhibits ever built.
I know the bear-seal underwater dynamic is often praised but otherwise how many people are claiming this exhibit is as great as you're implying?
Okay... who besides themselves has claimed this to be one of the most important zoo exhibits ever built?
~Thylo
There are people here who have praised the Orangutan Church more than actual churches.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Priceless
Not saying Arctic Ring of Life is one of the world's greatest exhibits -- there could be better close viewing options and there's no longer enough support species -- but I don't see the size of the exhibit as detrimental or impacting the rest of the collection in any way, for several reasons. The zoo is on a large (>100 acres), flat site with plenty of open land that could be developed if desired. Arctic Ring of Life opened well before Detroit started heavily downsizing its collection. The downsizing is largely due to the zoo discontinuing species mixes in their many big field exhibits or else merging their smaller grottoes. The Polar Bear exhibit has remained unchanged through that whole process. Also worth noting that the concrete side does have a significant portion of the land area taken up by either gravel or turf, so the bears occupying that side still have plenty of options for digging. I was there recently and had no trouble observing three bears between the two habitats, and one of the bears on the concrete side was covered in dirt.
Bronx is a strong contender for "overrated" because its considered one of the best in the world when in reality, I'm not sure it even cracks the top ten in the United States anymore. Zoo advancement wise the zoo has nosedived since its last major exhibit which was Madagascar in 2008. All the zoo has done in the last decade and a half since has essentially be just phasing out animals, closing buildings and frankly not looking into the future. Which is bizarre considering the sheer amount of money, notoriety and fame they've obtained from the show on Animal Planet and praise from the zoo community. Bronx is still a great zoo, but if you look at others in the USA like Saint Louis, Omaha, San Diego, Miami, Columbus, etc. constantly improving and making game changing exhibits and master plans, Bronx resting on its laurels isn't gonna cut it anymore. Is it objectively the best zoo in the North east? Absolutely. But that's like saying a cat is 'the biggest animal' in a room full of mice. It's all about relativity. Bronx is great for its intended audience, a big city zoo in New York. But for zoo enthusiasts I wouldn't say it should be in your must do list.
The zoo has the largest collection it has had in decades I believe. Why the focus on massive new exhibits when most of the zoo is perfectly fine and the zoo instead can focus on better displays in existing buildings for core conservation species? Its focused on sustainable growth and its real conservation mission, and most on here would agree its still a top three zoo in the nation, and top 10 in the world.
But this argument keeps getting brought up and while slightly old, is often not backed up by the facts....
Also that last line is really something. I mean the collection is top notch, just think about the rarities. Lesser adjutant, Maleo, Anhinga, barasingha, gaur, Javan langur, Gelada, capuchinbird, capercaille, 40 species of turtle, 35 ungulates, the mouse house, and more are nothing to ignore.
It may miss some ABC species, but it sure has a top-notch collection, that's diverse across the board. As of the last time it publicly reported its species counts (2016) it had 172 species of mammal, 301 bird species, 161 reptile species, 40 amphibian, 36 invertebrate, and 70 species of fish.
It may miss some ABC species, but it sure has a top-notch collection, that's diverse across the board. As of the last time it publicly reported its species counts (2016) it had 172 species of mammal, 301 bird species, 161 reptile species, 40 amphibian, 36 invertebrate, and 70 species of fish.