Must See American Zoos

ANyhuis said:
Good list, CGSwans! I have a few reactions, but nothing serious. I'd recommend Milwaukee or Toledo, instead of Detroit. I would try to squeeze in the Tennessee Aquarium (possibly a Top 5 aquarium) onto the same trip with Atlanta. I also think the Memphis Zoo is probably the best zoo you're leaving out. I also wouldn't go in any way out of your way to get to The Wilds. It's very limited, and simply not worth any kind of extra journey. They get about 20,000 people a year there.
Click to expand...

Detroit - I simply must see Arctic Ring of Life one day. Amphibiville too.

Milwaukee County Zoo - I guess it's kinda on the way between Chicago and Minneapolis, isn't it? ;)

Toledo Zoo - close to Cleveland so could go on the list without upsetting the girlfriend too much. :p Looking at the map, I reckon a zoo fiend could do worse than living in Chicago, btw. One of the best aquariums in the world, a major free zoo in the city, another large zoo outside the city and all the great zoos of the Midwest within easy weekend road trip distance.

Tennessee Aquarium - the problem with adding more aquariums to the list is that I wonder what could match it with Georgia, Monterey Bay and Shedd? What does Tennessee have that is in the 'unique' category?

Memphis Zoo - it's on the list! Sort of poked onto the 'Deep South' tour.
 
Honestly I'm not interested in what's in it for children. In fact I could really care less whether or not the children are happy. I know generally families with children pay the bills for the zoo, but I don't think that if an exhibit wants to be the best of the best it should be geared toward children. CGF is not that child friendly yet it still manages to be imo the best set of exhibits in America. Milwaukee may be more complete but what's the point of having more animals if there crammed into crappy exhibits. My home Cleveland Zoo has the largest collection of primates in North America in probably the worst exhibits I have ever seen. No doubt the animals are well cared for but I watched a squirrel monkey run back and forth like a mad man for 20 minutes in a cage smaller than a bathroom. I would rather the zoo not have any squirrel monkeys at all then see that.
 
BlackRhino said:
Honestly I'm not interested in what's in it for children. In fact I could really care less whether or not the children are happy. I know generally families with children pay the bills for the zoo, but I don't think that if an exhibit wants to be the best of the best it should be geared toward children. CGF is not that child friendly yet it still manages to be imo the best set of exhibits in America. Milwaukee may be more complete but what's the point of having more animals if there crammed into crappy exhibits. My home Cleveland Zoo has the largest collection of primates in North America in probably the worst exhibits I have ever seen. No doubt the animals are well cared for but I watched a squirrel monkey run back and forth like a mad man for 20 minutes in a cage smaller than a bathroom. I would rather the zoo not have any squirrel monkeys at all then see that.
Click to expand...

Bravo!

The desire to be ever-more "kid-friendly" is a circular trap. Do people justify visits to museums or botanical gardens as worthy simply "because the kids like it?" Or perhaps more on point, do they stop visiting museums and botanical gardens "because the kids have outgrown it?" (a statement heard over and over regarding zoos in the US).

Zoos strive to be taken seriously as conservation organizations, but lose credibility when they pander to the perception that they are all about a fun day out for children. What happens in 20 years when adults will greatly outnumber children in most Western nations?

There is a reason zoos were shut out from being eligible for funding in the federal stimulus package along with golf courses and casinos--they are widely viewed as frivolous entertainment facilities for kids, not worthy of serious consideration or investment. The more all zoos move toward being bargain-basement Busch Gardens, the worse this perception issue will be.

And Milwaukee is a completely average, borderline generic zoo. Detroit is more spotty, but has at least tried to break new ground with Amphibiville and AROL.
 
I agree reduakri and I would hate to see the zoo turn into just another tourist trap. Imo the less touristy zoos are the better.
 
reduakari said:
Bravo!

The desire to be ever-more "kid-friendly" is a circular trap. Do people justify visits to museums or botanical gardens as worthy simply "because the kids like it?" Or perhaps more on point, do they stop visiting museums and botanical gardens "because the kids have outgrown it?" (a statement heard over and over regarding zoos in the US).

Zoos strive to be taken seriously as conservation organizations, but lose credibility when they pander to the perception that they are all about a fun day out for children. What happens in 20 years when adults will greatly outnumber children in most Western nations?

There is a reason zoos were shut out from being eligible for funding in the federal stimulus package along with golf courses and casinos--they are widely viewed as frivolous entertainment facilities for kids, not worthy of serious consideration or investment. The more all zoos move toward being bargain-basement Busch Gardens, the worse this perception issue will be.

And Milwaukee is a completely average, borderline generic zoo. Detroit is more spotty, but has at least tried to break new ground with Amphibiville and AROL.
Click to expand...

As a zoo enthusiast first and a father second I dont think that exhibits should be geared towards children either. However it is good that they are geared towards everyone by having viewing points that young children and those in wheelchairs and even strollers can see. The more traditional zoo with mesh enclosures often have a solid barrier and or landscaping that prevent those with a lower viewpoint to completly miss out on the experience. Having been annoyed by other childrens behaviour in zoos, my sons continual exposure to zoo environments means that he respects the animals and the zoo and knows how to behave in a zoo environment. However like other kids he has surplus energy and I'd always advocate a play area within a zoo so that part way round he can run around, make a noise and be a kid before going back to looking at the animals. The play area should be as far away from the exhibits as possible but being kid friendly indirectly helps zoo enthusiasts without kids have a better environment too.
 
CGSwans said:
Detroit - I simply must see Arctic Ring of Life one day. Amphibiville too.
Click to expand...

I can understand that. I haven't seen them yet myself, so I too am intrigued to get up there and see them.

CGSwans said:
Milwaukee County Zoo - I guess it's kinda on the way between Chicago and Minneapolis, isn't it? ;)
Click to expand...

Yep. I just thought you'd want to squeeze in one of America's more historic zoos. Milwaukee was a pioneer in the "predator-prey" concent of exhibits, and they do it better than anyone else. As a cold weather zoo, they also have some of the better "houses" (reptiles, small mammals, aviary, etc.). And you'll likely enjoy seeing about 20 bonobos, moose, Dall Sheep, and other interesting creatures.

CGSwans said:
Looking at the map, I reckon a zoo fiend could do worse than living in Chicago, btw. One of the best aquariums in the world, a major free zoo in the city, another large zoo outside the city and all the great zoos of the Midwest within easy weekend road trip distance.
Click to expand...

Totally agree! I live near there (Indianapolis), and it's great having so many great zoological sites nearby.

CGSwans said:
Tennessee Aquarium - the problem with adding more aquariums to the list is that I wonder what could match it with Georgia, Monterey Bay and Shedd? What does Tennessee have that is in the 'unique' category?
Click to expand...

Georgia, Monterey Bay and Shedd are clearly the "Big 3" in the US. I put Tennessee in the category of those (along with National-Baltimore) competing for the #4 slot. They have clearly the best collection and displays of freshwater animals and a very unique setup, where you are descending down an indoor "canyon", with wall-to-wall aquariums on all sides. You'll be 2 hours from it when you're in Atlanta. In addition, it's located in a great tourist area (Chattanooga), where you can take in lots of interesting Civil War attractions, and great views from Lookout Mtn.
 
BlackRhino said:
I agree reduakri and I would hate to see the zoo turn into just another tourist trap. Imo the less touristy zoos are the better.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, when you have children of your own, you very well may think differently. As a writer of a "travel guide", I simply have to think about what "regular" travelers want to see. And since families with children "pay the bills" (your words), making zoos more kid-friendly is still important. But again, it's NOT an either/or proposal. Zoos (and exhibits) can be BOTH educational and fun. Disney's Animal Kingdom is the perfect example of this.
 
Well I have got children, and I prefer to see them treated intelligently rather than patronised. I hate the fact that as an adult it is seen as weird for me to go to the zoo without children, and that zoos are a place for children. If I want them to go on a huge playground I take them to the park, I don't want one in the zoo. I also take my children to art galleries, museums, theatres etc. Does the Louvre need a cartoon version of the Mona Lisa to guide you around, and does the Tower of London keep its information signs to two or three snippets of simple information in case you can't cope with any more?

I certainly don't want to promulgate the usual Atlantic divide debate but the American approach with themes and enforced fun and food everywhere is not IMO the healthiest approach and I think children as well as adults can have an enjoyable day out as well as learn a lot if they are treated intelligently and not subject to "edutainment". Sadly where USA leads Europe follows and Europeans seem to be lapping it up too.
 
This thread appears to have journeyed all over the place, but I will address a couple of points that have arisen:

1- The Wilds - from recent photos in the ZooChat gallery this place appears to be astonishing, even with its limited number of species. Massive, multi-acre paddocks for a variety of hoofstock, the cheetah exhibits are all 1-2 acres in size, the Indian rhino pool resembles a lake, and the dholes would be wonderful to see. Huge, naturalistic enclosures is something that I would drive far out of my way to see, and the lack of overt commercialism is something that obviously appeals to many ZooChatters. Sure, the breeding centre is nothing more than enormous grassy fields, but it must have some of the largest enclosures of any zoo.

2- Detroit Zoo - if for nothing else this zoo is worth driving hundreds of miles simply to see the Arctic Ring of Life. That 2001 set of habitats is the 2nd best group of exhibits that I've seen in my life (after Bronx's Congo Gorilla Forest) and since polar bears usually have substandard grottoes and pits it is truly enthralling to see them in their grassy meadow, cavorting around in their icy pool, or swimming near the underwater tunnel. Superb, award-winning, legendary exhibit.

After Arctic Ring of Life many zoo fans say that Detroit is nothing more than an average zoo. I disagree for many reasons: Amphibiville is another award-winning construction, and it is a beautifully established amphibian complex with a massive pond outside its door. Also at the zoo is a dated yet impressive penguinarium with 3 different species, a great reptile house (80 species in total), huge paddocks for zebras, giraffes, South American mammals and other hoofstock, extremely large outdoor enclosures for red pandas, Japanese macaques, red kangaroos, chimpanzees (the largest in North America), gorillas, wolverines, tree kangaroos, aardvarks, etc. It was the very first zoo in all of North America to be completely barless, and I think that other than a lemur exhibit there is nothing at the zoo that is traditional other than a handful of 1928 grottoes for bears and big cats. I would liken the zoo to Miami, as both places rely on huge enclosures with many moated exhibits providing perfect viewing for guests. Unlike many other collections in Detroit there is very little to complain about, and I think that more zoos could appreciate the large spaces that the zoo gives its animals. Would someone rather visit a zoo like Cincinnati? There the collection is superb and it is a top rated establishment, but a great number of the exhibits are far too small and outdated.
 
snowleopard said:
1- The Wilds - from recent photos in the ZooChat gallery this place appears to be astonishing, even with its limited number of species. Massive, multi-acre paddocks for a variety of hoofstock, the cheetah exhibits are all 1-2 acres in size, the Indian rhino pool resembles a lake, and the dholes would be wonderful to see. Huge, naturalistic enclosures is something that I would drive far out of my way to see, and the lack of overt commercialism is something that obviously appeals to many ZooChatters.
Click to expand...

OK, I've actually been to The Wilds, so I'll give you my view. First of all, it really IS "way out of the way" -- over an hour off of the nearest interstate freeway, so be prepared for a long boring drive on 2-lane roads. Honestly, with this in mind, I would probably rather make my long out-of-the-way drive to a "real" animal-viewing place, such as a National Wildlife Refuge, national park (ie, Everglades, Yellowstone), or even a state park like South Dakota's Custer St.Park. Secondly, if you have any children along, or even a spouse who isn't a hard core zoo-lover, skip it! The place offers nothing in the form of "fun" or "entertainment". When I was there, I had my own young daughter along. And while she was a good sport about it, she was bored! In reality, only a really solid ZooChatter would find this place worth the journey. I personally would rather visit a real zoo.
 
ANyhuis said:
OK, I've actually been to The Wilds, so I'll give you my view. First of all, it really IS "way out of the way" -- over an hour off of the nearest interstate freeway, so be prepared for a long boring drive on 2-lane roads. Honestly, with this in mind, I would probably rather make my long out-of-the-way drive to a "real" animal-viewing place, such as a National Wildlife Refuge, national park (ie, Everglades, Yellowstone), or even a state park like South Dakota's Custer St.Park. Secondly, if you have any children along, or even a spouse who isn't a hard core zoo-lover, skip it! The place offers nothing in the form of "fun" or "entertainment". When I was there, I had my own young daughter along. And while she was a good sport about it, she was bored! In reality, only a really solid ZooChatter would find this place worth the journey. I personally would rather visit a real zoo.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. About 1/4 of the visitors during my visit were children under the age of 12. They were excited to see the giraffes and then complained the rest of the time. The exhibits are impressive but the collection, minus the Dholes, is mediocre at best. My advice: don't plan an entire trip just to see only this facility. Add in a few more zoos to your trip, or you will be sorely disappointed.
 
I really enjoy The Wilds but I think it excels in its programming. For example, while most of their animals are off exhbiit in the winter, they offer behind the scenes tours as well as special days, such as going out to help put together a survey on bald and golden eagle populations in the wild.

They also offer summer camps for adults and families. I'm a member of the Columbus Zoo, which offers no programs for photography, unlike The Wilds which runs a photo camp. I went last year and we did sunrise, day time and sunset tours as well as behind the scene opportunities where we able to feed and photograph rhinos up close.
 
PBecker said:
I really enjoy The Wilds but I think it excels in its programming. For example, while most of their animals are off exhbiit in the winter, they offer behind the scenes tours as well as special days, such as going out to help put together a survey on bald and golden eagle populations in the wild.

They also offer summer camps for adults and families. I'm a member of the Columbus Zoo, which offers no programs for photography, unlike The Wilds which runs a photo camp. I went last year and we did sunrise, day time and sunset tours as well as behind the scene opportunities where we able to feed and photograph rhinos up close.
Click to expand...

I'm NOT saying the Wilds can't be very enjoyable. I enjoyed it. But the subject of this thread was which zoos (or zoological places) should be on the list of "Must Sees" in the USA (presumably for a visiting non-American)? With that criteria, the Wilds simply does not belong. There are probably over 100 zoos, aquariums, and other wildlife parks in the USA more worthy for this list. The Wilds is a place to go to IF you are already in the neighborhood (and even then, it'll be a long sidetrack), but NOT a place to go way out of the way to see.
 
ANyhuis said:
I'm NOT saying the Wilds can't be very enjoyable. I enjoyed it. But the subject of this thread was which zoos (or zoological places) should be on the list of "Must Sees" in the USA (presumably for a visiting non-American)? With that criteria, the Wilds simply does not belong. There are probably over 100 zoos, aquariums, and other wildlife parks in the USA more worthy for this list. The Wilds is a place to go to IF you are already in the neighborhood (and even then, it'll be a long sidetrack), but NOT a place to go way out of the way to see.
Click to expand...

I think at The Wilds, you get an experience very different from most zoos. If you're interested in quantity of species, then you should avoid The Wilds. On the other hand, I would go out of my way to The Wilds if (a) if you're interested in more of a safari experience than a typical zoo visit and/or (b) you are seriously interested in conservation issues as The Wilds, in my opinion, does better than most zoos in the education aspect during a visit
 
PBecker said:
On the other hand, I would go out of my way to The Wilds if (a) if you're interested in more of a safari experience than a typical zoo visit and/or (b) you are seriously interested in conservation issues as The Wilds, in my opinion, does better than most zoos in the education aspect during a visit
Click to expand...

... and (c) if you don't have any children with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top