I think Bronx devoted a lot more in conservation than other zoos, and most of Bronx exhibit range from are nothing wrong to top class from what I've know. The monorail is one of the few left in the US and could spark an interest. Is it lacking behind in development? maybe. But 1)very few zoos have surpassed it and 2)it's focus on conservation is the main highlight. You talk about Columbus, does Animal Village increase it's quality? (Just a particular example to say development is not equal to better)
While I do understand the sentiment as to the lack of new capital campaigns, that’s not to say that other zoos constantly doing new projects are doing better than the Bronx. I haven’t been to many other than the big zoos here in Southern California, I’m a diehard fan of the San Diego Zoo and Safari Park. The San Diego Zoo has had some hits and misses in the past 20 years, my favorites being Africa Rocks and the brand new Wildlife Explorers Basecamp.
At least that weather/climate arguments seems to have been firmly put to bed.
This deserves a chef’s kissI'm not going to comment much on the subject both because one can find countless "debates" on this subject elsewhere on the forum and because I think everyone who's responded has summed things up perfectly.
In particular, I want to emphasize what @Julio C Castro has observed. Everyone who criticizes Bronx's lack of development (while often ignoring any and all projects they have done since Madagascar!, choosing instead to pretend the zoo has been in a completely stagnant state since either 2008, 2009, or 2012 depending on who you're talking to) likes to bring up the developments at the other major US collections for comparison. What people ignore, though, is why those developments are necessary. Zoos like San Diego, Omaha, and St. Louis have been pushing their remodels and developments in part due to the fact that what was there originally is just plain bad. Compare that to Bronx, where yards constructed in the 1940's are still standing and still better than what most zoos' new developments for the same species are. Why would they zoo tear down perfectly great habitats to build new ones that just look flashier?
I do agree that some of the zoo has been looking a bit run down as of late, but that's why their constant renovations and redevelopment of older areas should be highlighted. They have done a great job of maintaining what they have and I've actually been very surprised to see just how much they've pushed forward with necessary renovations through COVID. I really do think part of the issue here is that Bronx doesn't exactly "feel" like a US megazoo in its design. Most major US zoos are significantly younger and consist of exhibitry styles following modern trends in America, ie. a relentless amount of mockrock, "grotto-style" hoofstock yards (if they choose to keep hoofstock at all), and grandiose visitor viewing areas. And genuinely I'm not saying those are inherently bad or that they're worse than what Bronx does. They're not worse, they're just different styles and are done in a different way. Bronx on the other hand is a very old zoo for this country, it will be celebrating its 123rd birthday this year. It was by and large designed in a style akin to that of the older Central European zoos. For those more used to younger collections, the older look and feel might not be as appealing, and that's okay. It doesn't make the zoo bad, though.
This isn't all to say there aren't criticisms of the zoo either, though. I personally find their signage issues really awful nowadays, though on my last visit all the signage in World of Birds had been replaced and I know they have made updates to the JW signage so hopefully this is an issue being actively resolved.
Claiming all the zoo has done since Madagascar! is phase-out animals, close exhibits, and not look into the future is absurd, however. The 2009 budget cuts were hard on the zoo and clearly they have had a lasting impact combined with NYC's soaring construction costs and the utter destruction of the NY Aquarium for which the WCS is also responsible for. That said, since at least 2014, I've only seen the collection continue to grow. Despite the only larger developments at the zoo since 2010's being the new Komodo Dragon/giant tortoise exhibit and the remodel of the Children's Zoo, the zoo's collection has grown steadily. New and unique herptiles are being added all the time and the bird collection has grown by at least 1-2 dozen species since the new curator took over. The small mammal collection has perhaps been hurt the most but that's just due to the general lack of interest in small mammals in the US and the fact that many of these species have short lifespans. Currently, the Mouse House collection has dwindled slightly, but just as has happened in the past I suspect it won't be too long before they find additional species to bring back in (they've already added Feathertail Glider and Barbary Striped Grass Mouse, for instance). The Asian hoofstock collection remains phenomenal despite them being pretty alone in breeding quite a few of those species. Their Gaur herd has never been larger in the time I've been visiting the zoo, and they have new breeding males for several of their deer species. Not to mention the addition of Bactrian Deer, which is a huge win especially since San Diego seems to no longer have an interest in their deer.
This is longer than I intended already so I'm going to cut it here, but in essence I think if people want to criticize the zoo they should find some more accurate material. These same arguments are almost older than some of the members making them
~Thylo
I remember being told by a member on this site that Arctic Ring of Life was one of the best exhibits ever. I assumed this was a commonly held opinion. I guess not.
Again, the argument of this thread wasn't "Is Bronx Bad?" it was "is the zoo overrated" and the answer is, entirely. Are the habitats good. Yes. Is the collection nice. Yes. But when they have an entire zoo's worth of animals backstage, what good is that for public perception of them doing a good job. Cause while budget is a big factor people bring up, lack of funding is far from the main issue. It was during the recession but in the last 15 years a komodo dragon habitat and replacing polar bears with dholes truly is the only changes made. They really haven't seemingly "gained" many species relative, moreso replaced many. You mention their birds/herps increased, but it seems like they moreso got swapped for other stuff. They did gain bactrian deer, at the cost of axis deer (at least for public viewing). They did gain dholes, but at the cost of polar bears. They did gain some cool birds, but also phased some out. Now of course all of this is relative subjective stuff. But major argument being made was that the zoo is "overrated". Congo is a fancy path with a pretty standard gorilla habitat. Jungleworld is a good tropical house, but not the best. Its a very nice zoo, but not the worlds greatest, and certainly not the #2 next to San Diego. And as mentioned, while other zoos talk about their big master plans for new state of the art exhibits, the Bronx likes to mention why they "are getting rid of Elephants" or "why New York isn't a good place for x, y, and z". But instead of proposing a sister park somewhere that would better suit some of these animals, they essentially just shrug and go "eh, it is what it is". Cause Saint Louis, San Diego and Columbus, all created secondary safari parks to better breed, manage and showcase their species that are hard to fit into their city zoos. The WCS though crams their excess backstage in stables at the Bronx. The WCS does some great conservation work, but in an effort to breed, import and trade stuff behind the scenes, they have left the actual zoo in a state of stagnation.I'm not going to comment much on the subject both because one can find countless "debates" on this subject elsewhere on the forum and because I think everyone who's responded has summed things up perfectly.
In particular, I want to emphasize what @Julio C Castro has observed. Everyone who criticizes Bronx's lack of development (while often ignoring any and all projects they have done since Madagascar!, choosing instead to pretend the zoo has been in a completely stagnant state since either 2008, 2009, or 2012 depending on who you're talking to) likes to bring up the developments at the other major US collections for comparison. What people ignore, though, is why those developments are necessary. Zoos like San Diego, Omaha, and St. Louis have been pushing their remodels and developments in part due to the fact that what was there originally is just plain bad. Compare that to Bronx, where yards constructed in the 1940's are still standing and still better than what most zoos' new developments for the same species are. Why would they zoo tear down perfectly great habitats to build new ones that just look flashier?
I do agree that some of the zoo has been looking a bit run down as of late, but that's why their constant renovations and redevelopment of older areas should be highlighted. They have done a great job of maintaining what they have and I've actually been very surprised to see just how much they've pushed forward with necessary renovations through COVID. I really do think part of the issue here is that Bronx doesn't exactly "feel" like a US megazoo in its design. Most major US zoos are significantly younger and consist of exhibitry styles following modern trends in America, ie. a relentless amount of mockrock, "grotto-style" hoofstock yards (if they choose to keep hoofstock at all), and grandiose visitor viewing areas. And genuinely I'm not saying those are inherently bad or that they're worse than what Bronx does. They're not worse, they're just different styles and are done in a different way. Bronx on the other hand is a very old zoo for this country, it will be celebrating its 123rd birthday this year. It was by and large designed in a style akin to that of the older Central European zoos. For those more used to younger collections, the older look and feel might not be as appealing, and that's okay. It doesn't make the zoo bad, though.
This isn't all to say there aren't criticisms of the zoo either, though. I personally find their signage issues really awful nowadays, though on my last visit all the signage in World of Birds had been replaced and I know they have made updates to the JW signage so hopefully this is an issue being actively resolved.
Claiming all the zoo has done since Madagascar! is phase-out animals, close exhibits, and not look into the future is absurd, however. The 2009 budget cuts were hard on the zoo and clearly they have had a lasting impact combined with NYC's soaring construction costs and the utter destruction of the NY Aquarium for which the WCS is also responsible for. That said, since at least 2014, I've only seen the collection continue to grow. Despite the only larger developments at the zoo since 2010's being the new Komodo Dragon/giant tortoise exhibit and the remodel of the Children's Zoo, the zoo's collection has grown steadily. New and unique herptiles are being added all the time and the bird collection has grown by at least 1-2 dozen species since the new curator took over. The small mammal collection has perhaps been hurt the most but that's just due to the general lack of interest in small mammals in the US and the fact that many of these species have short lifespans. Currently, the Mouse House collection has dwindled slightly, but just as has happened in the past I suspect it won't be too long before they find additional species to bring back in (they've already added Feathertail Glider and Barbary Striped Grass Mouse, for instance). The Asian hoofstock collection remains phenomenal despite them being pretty alone in breeding quite a few of those species. Their Gaur herd has never been larger in the time I've been visiting the zoo, and they have new breeding males for several of their deer species. Not to mention the addition of Bactrian Deer, which is a huge win especially since San Diego seems to no longer have an interest in their deer.
This is longer than I intended already so I'm going to cut it here, but in essence I think if people want to criticize the zoo they should find some more accurate material. These same arguments are almost older than some of the members making them
~Thylo
These three are all smaller zoos that don't have the space to carry large ungulate collections. The Bronx not only has the space to carry these ungulates but has actually done a good job at regulating them even though there is now wide disinterest in Asian ungulates. Has the Bronx shown it needs another safari park to help its collection? No, it hasn't. To add to that the WCS can't handle another facility right now. As has been mentioned multiple times much of the WCS funds and attention need to go to the aquarium to recover from 2012. If WCS wants a facility to take in surplus rarities they have prospect park and Queens to take in those animals which they have. There just is no need for a new WCS park and honestly, it sounds like the issues you are describing have only been conceived in your mind.
You have made many assumptions including assuming that being featured on TV has brought substantial income to WCS but especially that any zoo is being run or financed to win a competition on ZooChat. What we do here is a little bubble divorced from the reality of zoo management. Zoo Boards and zoo Directors actually have their own priorities.
Maybe people just get off to having their jimmies rustled. :shrug: Seems as if it's becoming another Hot Takes thread. What's distinguishing this from that?
