Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo (number of animals)

[Lenny P. Lamb]

Moderator note: this thread split from here: Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo: Timeline [Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo]

Who could have imagined that tiny Riverside Park Zoo, which opened in 1894, would eventually have a new name and become one of the world's great zoos? There were some notable exhibits that opened in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, but the huge rainforest building known as the Lied Jungle was what truly kickstarted the zoo's progress in the modern era. The annual attendance immediately doubled and that began a 30-year odyssey of a staggering number of big-budget exhibits. Pre-Covid, the zoo was packing in two million visitors per year, in a city that has less than half that number of citizens! The zoo is now internationally known and a destination for people all around the world.

Timeline of major new projects under Lee G. Simmons since 1992:

1992 - $25 million - Lied Jungle + Treetops Restaurant + Education Center

1995 - $16 million - Kingdoms of the Seas Aquarium

1996 - $2.4 million - Center for Conservation and Research

1997 - IMAX Theater

1998 - $1.8 million – Garden of the Senses + Lee G. Simmons Conservation Park and Wildlife Safari (a satellite zoo 30 minutes away)

1999 - Carousel

2000 - North Entrance, gift shop and plaza

2002 - $31.5 million - Desert Dome (+ Kingdoms of the Night)

2003 - Kingdoms of the Night

2004 - $14.5 million - Gorilla Valley

2005 - $8.5 million - Orangutan Forest

2006 - $6 million - Expansion to the Center for Conservation and Research

2008 - Butterfly & Insect Pavilion

2009 - Skyfari (aerial ride)

2010 - $10.5 million - Expedition Madagascar


Timeline of major new projects under Dennis Pate:

2009-2018 - $10.5 million spent on infrastructure improvements such as pathways, signs, service roads, utilities, etc.

2012 - $11 million – Scott Aquarium renovation and Conference Center addition

2016 - $73 million – African Grasslands (28 acres of zoo exhibits)

2016 - $14 million – Alaskan Waterpark

2017 - $27.5 million – Children's Adventure Trails (5-acre part of the zoo that includes an Amphitheater and a new Education Center)

2018 - $22 million - Asian Highlands: Phase One

2019 - Asian Highlands: Phase Two

2019 - $7 million - Glacier Bay Landing

2020 - $27.5 million - Owen Sea Lion Shores

2021 - $15 million - Stingray Beach ($6 million) + Simmons Aviary revamp ($2 million) + Gorilla Valley revamp ($7 million)

Director Dennis Pate has announced in numerous interviews that 2021 marks the end of the zoo's Master Plan. The progress has been nothing short of astonishing. Just in the past 5 years, there has been a transformation of at least 45 acres and now the zoo promotes two-day passes on its website and at the entrance ticketing booths (a 2nd consecutive day is 50% off) because it can be difficult for families to see everything in a single day. Omaha certainly has its flaws like every other zoo, but other than San Diego, is there a single zoo in North America that is even in the same ballpark?

Now, what will the zoo do next? Will there be either Polar Bears or Grizzlies across from the Alaskan Waterpark? Will there be additions to the already huge African Grasslands area? The next Master Plan will be hotly anticipated by all zoo nerds.

Actually we have gone down from 34,000 to less than 17,000. Given the DRAMATIC loss of animals in terms of species and numbers I would estimate that we are down to LESS than 10,000 animals. And 3,000 of those are bats. San Diego zoo and Saint Louis zoo BOTH have 19,000 plus animals WITHOUT the bats. Columbus zoo has more than 10,000 animals and these are real animals like green anaconda, chimpanzees, baboons, hippos, rhinos, elephants, jaguars etc. Get the point? Yah we have the most beautiful zoo in the world, but when you have to hike 1/4 of a mile between 2 sable antelope and 2 zebras, what is that? I love our zoo and I would love to see it return to its previous best zoo in the world status. Look at the polls before you get mad at me. One more thought, zoos are about animal conservation, well you CAN'T conserve what you DON'T have.

 

[TinoPup]

Actually we have gone down from 34,000 to less than 17,000. Given the DRAMATIC loss of animals in terms of species and numbers I would estimate that we are down to LESS than 10,000 animals. And 3,000 of those are bats. San Diego zoo and Saint Louis zoo BOTH have 19,000 plus animals WITHOUT the bats. Columbus zoo has more than 10,000 animals and these are real animals like green anaconda, chimpanzees, baboons, hippos, rhinos, elephants, jaguars etc. Get the point? Yah we have the most beautiful zoo in the world, but when you have to hike 1/4 of a mile between 2 sable antelope and 2 zebras, what is that? I love our zoo and I would love to see it return to its previous best zoo in the world status. Look at the polls before you get mad at me. One more thought, zoos are about animal conservation, well you CAN'T conserve what you DON'T have.

I really don't get your point, no. How are Columbus's animals any more "real" than Omaha's? What does the distance between two exhibits have to do with anything at all?

Getting a total number of animals is difficult, but for mammals, their numbers are comparable (if you remove bats, for some reason). More doesn't always mean better, anyway.

I'm not sure what "polls" you're referring to, but none are remotely an accurate measurement of what the best zoo in the country (yet alone world) is. They're based on who has the best social media presence and can get the most voters to click on the links on a daily basis. Look at USA Today's current winners - #2 is Fort Worth, which I personally wouldn't even place as the best in the DFW area. Bronx and San Diego aren't even in the top 10, and many here would put either of those #1. Their current #1 aquarium is Wonders of Wildlife in Missouri, with no mention of Monterey Bay, Shedd, or Georgia. Simmons is #1 safari, which I liked, but it's certainly not the best in the country.

"You can't conserve what you don't have" is an absurd statement. Zoos do it every day! Let's use WCS (Bronx Zoo, etc) as an example, since they put a lot of info out there. Some of their priority species are coastal dolphins, whales (especially right whales), and sharks, skates, and rays (here's their shark plan for the next 10 years). Other than a few of the latter at their aquarium, how many of those do you think WCS zoos hold? What about their wolverine program, white-lipped peccary, argali, saiga, chiru?

 

[pachyderm pro]

A few things...

Actually we have gone down from 34,000 to less than 17,000. Given the DRAMATIC loss of animals in terms of species and numbers I would estimate that we are down to LESS than 10,000 animals. And 3,000 of those are bats. San Diego zoo and Saint Louis zoo BOTH have 19,000 plus animals WITHOUT the bats.

Zoos all over the world are downsizing their collections. It's what needs to be done in order to maintain modern standards. Where are these numbers coming from? Are you really suggesting that over 20,000 animals were removed since the master plan began implementation? That just doesn't add up. Even so I would hardly call 10,000 animals something to scoff at. Omaha maintains a strong collection of marquee species and several rarities scattered throughout as well. Its one of the best collections in the country and I don't see how you could argue any differently.

Columbus zoo has more than 10,000 animals and these are real animals like green anaconda, chimpanzees, baboons, hippos, rhinos, elephants, jaguars etc. Get the point?

Columbus doesn't have chimps, baboons, hippos or jaguars, and Omaha also has elephants, rhinos and anaconda so this is a moot point. What do even mean by "real animals" anyway?

I love our zoo and I would love to see it return to its previous best zoo in the world status.

You mean back when they had all cement bear grottos, monkey crib cages, an overstocked cat complex and hyrax stuck on narrow ledges? I honestly find it baffling to suggest that Omaha has somehow gotten worse over the past few years when over 100 million dollars have been spent and a majority of the zoo received a fantastic overhaul. None of the points you're bringing up make any sense.

EDIT: Cross-Post with @TinoPup

 

[Coelacanth18]

Actually we have gone down from 34,000 to less than 17,000. Given the DRAMATIC loss of animals in terms of species and numbers I would estimate that we are down to LESS than 10,000 animals. And 3,000 of those are bats. San Diego zoo and Saint Louis zoo BOTH have 19,000 plus animals WITHOUT the bats.

Where are you getting these numbers from, or that estimate from? I don't understand the math on how Omaha - with the largest zoo aquarium in the country - could only have 7,000 non-bat animals.

Out of curiosity, what's your problem with bats anyway? Omaha has the largest collection of bat species in the country, outside of specialty facilities like Lubee. For some it's actually a highlight of the zoo and a sign of its commitment to smaller, more overlooked species. Even if you aren't into bats though, I don't see why it matters that Omaha has a lot of them.

Look at the polls before you get mad at me.

Can't, you didn't cite any

 

[Gondwana]

I recently visited Omaha for the first time since before African Grasslands was constructed, and I'll agree with one point raised by @Lenny P. Lamb -- you can go a long way without seeing a lot of variety as you traverse that complex since the main path runs the full length of the big field exhibits, and it's interrupted by the lagoon. I also specifically noticed that the zebra and Sable Antelope exhibits seemed understocked. The Sable Antelope numbers surprised me a bit because they were one of several specialty hoofstock species (along with Gaur, Nile Lechwe, and a few others) kept in big herds during the Simmons era. Overall I found African Grasslands to be a quite nice exhibit but a bit lacking in "intensity" of experience.

As for the future, I hope the zoo does eventually come through with a bear exhibit alongside a few smaller supporting enclosures to make a more complete Pacific Northwest complex tied into the existing sea lions, splash pad, and Glacier Bay landing.

Among the older mega-complexes, the Desert Dome is also looking a bit tired and could use a refurbish. I was pleasantly surprised that the plantings in the Lied Jungle are looking healthier than they did ~10 years ago, though the loss of geographic coherence seems unneccesary.

Aside from animal exhibits, I wonder if a future zoo initiative might be to change some of the circulation patterns. The only current option to avoid making a full loop along the main path is the Orangutan elevator. This creates some pinch points, especially where the train station, African restaurant, tram stop, and goat petting yard all come together. During my visit lines for train tickets and food service were simultaneously backed into the main path while a tram conductor was yelling to try and clear a lane.

 

[Chlidonias]

Actually we have gone down from 34,000 to less than 17,000.

I really don't think this is accurate. As I mentioned in the other thread, 34,000 or 30,000 animals are referenced in recent articles (i.e. this year), but the 17,000 animals is referenced in multiple articles going back at least as far as 2014 - and I only skimmed through the first page of Google results for that number; it has probably been repeated for decades.

I wouldn't take those figures as actually being accurate - they will be gross estimates including thousands of invertebrates - and they certainly can't be used for your argument of 34,000-down-to-17,000-animals because there isn't that correlation for number versus year.

 

[Lenny P. Lamb]

The point is that our omaha zoo is losing animals on a grand scale. I love our zoo, and it concerns me that we dont seem to be replacing them. The numbers are accurate as they appear on numerous websites and newsreels. There comes a time to ask what is going on. For example our new very beautiful renovated aviary now holds 250 birds instead of the original 500. If a zoo just keeps their animals as they give birth to young, then just that would exponentially multiply the population of animals. Where do all of the newborn sharks in the aquarium go? I've seen the eggs and keepers have verified that that's what they are. I mean if our zoo goes down to 1000 animals are you going g to rationalize that away? You can't conserve animals you dont have. Again, I want to see our zoo RETURN to its former status, and I'm sure those who love our animals would agree. Thank you for NOT taking this personal, because some people actually do.

 

[Lenny P. Lamb]

I really don't think this is accurate. As I mentioned in the other thread, 34,000 or 30,000 animals are referenced in recent articles (i.e. this year), but the 17,000 animals is referenced in multiple articles going back at least as far as 2014 - and I only skimmed through the first page of Google results for that number; it has probably been repeated for decades.

I wouldn't take those figures as actually being accurate - they will be gross estimates including thousands of invertebrates - and they certainly can't be used for your argument of 34,000-down-to-17,000-animals because there isn't that correlation for number versus year.

By real animals I mean rhinos chimps hippos etc as I clearly mentioned earlier. We have 3000 bats, when those numbers are added into our tally, it kind of seems inflated. And yes columbus, saint Louis and San Diego have MANY rhinos, asian AND african elephants common hippos, bonobos, chimps, baboons etc. Please do your research before trying to debunk me. I'm saying all of this to suggest: instead of spending millions of dollars to beautify an exhibit, why dont we get another white rhino for breeding and conservation purposes. I went online to get some answers, but all I've gotten back is alot of guff. I have better things to do and will be signing off rather than read flippant and defensive responses. Wisdom is receiving CONSTRUCTIVE feedback when necessary, and we should ALL be accountable to those we serve, meaning in this case the public.

 

[Lenny P. Lamb]

I recently visited Omaha for the first time since before African Grasslands was constructed, and I'll agree with one point raised by @Lenny P. Lamb -- you can go a long way without seeing a lot of variety as you traverse that complex since the main path runs the full length of the big field exhibits, and it's interrupted by the lagoon. I also specifically noticed that the zebra and Sable Antelope exhibits seemed understocked. The Sable Antelope numbers surprised me a bit because they were one of several specialty hoofstock species (along with Gaur, Nile Lechwe, and a few others) kept in big herds during the Simmons era. Overall I found African Grasslands to be a quite nice exhibit but a bit lacking in "intensity" of experience.

As for the future, I hope the zoo does eventually come through with a bear exhibit alongside a few smaller supporting enclosures to make a more complete Pacific Northwest complex tied into the existing sea lions, splash pad, and Glacier Bay landing.

Among the older mega-complexes, the Desert Dome is also looking a bit tired and could use a refurbish. I was pleasantly surprised that the plantings in the Lied Jungle are looking healthier than they did ~10 years ago, though the loss of geographic coherence seems unneccesary.

Aside from animal exhibits, I wonder if a future zoo initiative might be to change some of the circulation patterns. The only current option to avoid making a full loop along the main path is the Orangutan elevator. This creates some pinch points, especially where the train station, African restaurant, tram stop, and goat petting yard all come together. During my visit lines for train tickets and food service were simultaneously backed into the main path while a tram conductor was yelling to try and clear a lane.

 

[IndianRhino]

By real animals I mean rhinos chimps hippos etc as I clearly mentioned earlier. We have 3000 bats, when those numbers are added into our tally, it kind of seems inflated. And yes columbus, saint Louis and San Diego have MANY rhinos, asian AND african elephants common hippos, bonobos, chimps, baboons etc. Please do your research before trying to debunk me. I'm saying all of this to suggest: instead of spending millions of dollars to beautify an exhibit, why dont we get another white rhino for breeding and conservation purposes. I went online to get some answers, but all I've gotten back is alot of guff. I have better things to do and will be signing off rather than read flippant and defensive responses. Wisdom is receiving CONSTRUCTIVE feedback when necessary, and we should ALL be accountable to those we serve, meaning in this case the public.

That’s pretty ignorant to say “real animals” are only the really basic animals that the general public knows. Tbh, Omaha has a wonderful collection and I would rather they spend “millions of dollars to beautify an exhibit” than have a bunch of horrible exhibits with too many animals crammed into small spaces.

 

[pachyderm pro]

By real animals I mean rhinos chimps hippos etc as I clearly mentioned earlier. We have 3000 bats, when those numbers are added into our tally, it kind of seems inflated. And yes columbus, saint Louis and San Diego have MANY rhinos, asian AND african elephants common hippos, bonobos, chimps, baboons etc.

But what makes these "real animals" in comparison to others? Are smaller species somehow less valuable in your mind? You still haven't given an explanation for what this means.

Please do your research before trying to debunk me. I'm saying all of this to suggest: instead of spending millions of dollars to beautify an exhibit, why dont we get another white rhino for breeding and conservation purposes.

I suggest you do the same. The millions spent over the past decade haven't just gone into "beautifying exhibits" as you put it. The exhibits constructed are all some of the best of their kind in the country for several species. Functionality is the most important aspect of a zoo exhibit and Omaha didn't just prioritize aesthetics when building them, rather they also made sure to make exhibits that serve the animals needs better than many other zoos.

 

[Lenny P. Lamb]

Thank you for the educated response. Please realize that my wife and I are members of the zoo and go there about twice a month. We have been going ot the omaha zoo since we moved to omaha 13 months ago, and have never seen more than 2 or 3 zebra or sable antelope. There are also only 2 southern white rhino and ostriches. Much smaller zoos have a half dozen of these kinds of animals on exhibit. Where is the conservation in low numbers? Thanks again for the thoughtful response.

I recently visited Omaha for the first time since before African Grasslands was constructed, and I'll agree with one point raised by @Lenny P. Lamb -- you can go a long way without seeing a lot of variety as you traverse that complex since the main path runs the full length of the big field exhibits, and it's interrupted by the lagoon. I also specifically noticed that the zebra and Sable Antelope exhibits seemed understocked. The Sable Antelope numbers surprised me a bit because they were one of several specialty hoofstock species (along with Gaur, Nile Lechwe, and a few others) kept in big herds during the Simmons era. Overall I found African Grasslands to be a quite nice exhibit but a bit lacking in "intensity" of experience.

As for the future, I hope the zoo does eventually come through with a bear exhibit alongside a few smaller supporting enclosures to make a more complete Pacific Northwest complex tied into the existing sea lions, splash pad, and Glacier Bay landing.

Among the older mega-complexes, the Desert Dome is also looking a bit tired and could use a refurbish. I was pleasantly surprised that the plantings in the Lied Jungle are looking healthier than they did ~10 years ago, though the loss of geographic coherence seems unneccesary.

Aside from animal exhibits, I wonder if a future zoo initiative might be to change some of the circulation patterns. The only current option to avoid making a full loop along the main path is the Orangutan elevator. This creates some pinch points, especially where the train station, African restaurant, tram stop, and goat petting yard all come together. During my visit lines for train tickets and food service were simultaneously backed into the main path while a tram conductor was yelling to try and clear a lane.

 

[Chlidonias]

The point is that our omaha zoo is losing animals on a grand scale. I love our zoo, and it concerns me that we dont seem to be replacing them. The numbers are accurate as they appear on numerous websites and newsreels. There comes a time to ask what is going on.

The point is that your method is flawed. I said earlier that the figure of "17,000 animals" is used on numerous websites going back years - just now on Google I found a reference in a 2009 book called Nebraska which says the zoo has 17,000 animals. But you are claiming that the zoo has gone down to 17,000 animals from 34,000 animals - if the lower number is being used on considerably older sources than the higher number, that negates your claim that the zoo has somehow lost almost 20,000 animals recently.

We have 3000 bats...

What is your source for this? In one of your earlier posts on another thread you said 1000 bats. The closest I have found is an undated article about a research count where the estimate for the Lied Jungle bat population being about 750 animals (NRT counting bats at zoo | National Science Foundation National Research Traineeship (NRT) Program | Nebraska). Where are the other 2000+ bats kept?

 

[TinoPup]

The point is that our omaha zoo is losing animals on a grand scale.

You've offered no proof of this, and others have provided sources that show the opposite.

The numbers are accurate as they appear on numerous websites and newsreels.

What websites??

You can't conserve animals you dont have.

I already explained this, you most certainly can! That's the main point of conservation, even. Bringing animals into zoos is more of a fail-safe / last resort.

Again, I want to see our zoo RETURN to its former status, and I'm sure those who love our animals would agree.

There is no "former status". A high number of animals doesn't make a great zoo. Omaha has been doing great work since the 90s to improve their exhibits, but many of them in the past were extremely poor; my visit was less than three years ago and they still had the concrete blocks for most of the big cats then. Omaha has never been greater than it is now.

By real animals I mean rhinos chimps hippos etc as I clearly mentioned earlier.

What makes those animals more real than any other? Do you mean ABC animals?

We have 3000 bats, when those numbers are added into our tally, it kind of seems inflated.

So you want them to have more of each species, but when they do, it doesn't count? Omaha is well known for their bat conservation.

And yes columbus, saint Louis and San Diego have MANY rhinos, asian AND african elephants common hippos, bonobos, chimps, baboons etc. Please do your research before trying to debunk me.

So does Omaha. We've all done plenty of "research", visited these zoos, etc. ZC is filled with people who spend most of their free time at zoos across the country (and world!), looking up zoo related things, keeping track of animals, etc. Feel free to check out the threads on asian and african elephants in the USA, for one, where you'll find a studbook-like catalog of every single animal in the country.

I went online to get some answers, but all I've gotten back is alot of guff. I have better things to do and will be signing off rather than read flippant and defensive responses. Wisdom is receiving CONSTRUCTIVE feedback when necessary, and we should ALL be accountable to those we serve, meaning in this case the public.

You're not getting "gruff". You're getting requests for any shred of evidence to your claims. You've been visiting the zoo for barely a year, people here have been visiting for decades.

 

[Lenny P. Lamb]

Thank you for the thoughtful and objective response. My wife and I go to the omaha zoo twice a month, we really do love our zoo, and we have never in the 13 months that we have been attending seen more than 2 or 3 zebra or sable antelope. We also only have 2 white rhinos and ostrich and 1 tamar wallaby. Smaller zoo's have double and even triple these numbers on exhibit. Where is the conservation in these low numbers?

You've offered no proof of this, and others have provided sources that show the opposite.

Any website that you type the topic. These comebacks are opinionated and not proven either. AGAIN, I was seeking answers from friendly knowledgeable people. You can't argue with 2 zebra, 1 tiger, 2 ostriches and be the largest zoo. All you have to do is ask the internet anywhere how many animals the omaha zoo has and it will usually say 17,000. Luckily atleast one person responded OBJECTIVELY without the passive negative pushback. Quit challenging my source and knowledge. If I had been going to the omaha zoo for "decades" I'm sure I could only dramatically prove my point more because of a longer time to compare and see the dramatic loss of animals. It's still a beautiful zoo and in my opinion the world's 2nd best zoo ONLY after San Diego zoo. And before you argue the point, read a species comparison list.

What websites??



I already explained this, you most certainly can! That's the main point of conservation, even. Bringing animals into zoos is more of a fail-safe / last resort.



There is no "former status". A high number of animals doesn't make a great zoo. Omaha has been doing great work since the 90s to improve their exhibits, but many of them in the past were extremely poor; my visit was less than three years ago and they still had the concrete blocks for most of the big cats then. Omaha has never been greater than it is now.



What makes those animals more real than any other? Do you mean ABC animals?



So you want them to have more of each species, but when they do, it doesn't count? Omaha is well known for their bat conservation.



So does Omaha. We've all done plenty of "research", visited these zoos, etc. ZC is filled with people who spend most of their free time at zoos across the country (and world!), looking up zoo related things, keeping track of animals, etc. Feel free to check out the threads on asian and african elephants in the USA, for one, where you'll find a studbook-like catalog of every single animal in the country.



You're not getting "gruff". You're getting requests for any shred of evidence to your claims. You've been visiting the zoo for barely a year, people here have been visiting for decades.

 

[Echobeast]

Thank you for the thoughtful and objective response. My wife and I go to the omaha zoo twice a month, we really do love our zoo, and we have never in the 13 months that we have been attending seen more than 2 or 3 zebra or sable antelope. We also only have 2 white rhinos and ostrich and 1 tamar wallaby. Smaller zoo's have double and even triple these numbers on exhibit. Where is the conservation in these low numbers?

There is more to conservation than having lots of a particular species on exhibit. Animal management wise, it is probably appropriate to have that number of animals in those exhibits especially the rhinos which they’ve had trouble mixing with the giraffes and ostrich which was the original plan. There is way more to running a zoo than throwing a bunch of animals in an exhibit for the vague goal of “conservation”

 

[ThylacineAlive]

Thank you for the thoughtful and objective response. My wife and I go to the omaha zoo twice a month, we really do love our zoo, and we have never in the 13 months that we have been attending seen more than 2 or 3 zebra or sable antelope. We also only have 2 white rhinos and ostrich and 1 tamar wallaby. Smaller zoo's have double and even triple these numbers on exhibit. Where is the conservation in these low numbers?

There is no reason for Omaha to be needing to keep additional white rhinos or breed them in a mixed savanna, there are plenty of places breeding the species and the AZA doesn't need more breeders at this time. The zoo only has two zebras, yes, but they're of the non-endangered and recommended to be replaced species that are also mixed with their elephants and therefore it's impractical for them to have a big breeding herd. Idk if not all are on-exhibit atm but I know for a fact that the zoo has more than two Sable Antelope. That said, these are also in a non-breeding situation because there's an abundance of the species in the AZA and so Omaha is acting as a holder not a breeder which is just as important for captive species management as is breeding. Same story with the ostriches, peccaries, and undoubtedly many more species they keep. This isn't a problem, nor does it mean the zoo is leveraging animals, nor does it mean the zoo is not committed to conservation or being a better zoo.

Besides, you want the zoo to carry more species, right? Well being a necessary non-breeding holding collection plan allows the zoo to be able to keep more animals within the space they have and allows for more mixing opportunities. The zoo can't accomplish this if they have double to triple of numbers of every species they keep, especially the megafauna. Not to mention that many animals, like Tammar Wallaby, don't have large enough populations for the zoo take more animals in from. This is why they went out of rock-wallaby already, the population is just too small and other zoos have space for breeding them whereas Omaha doesn't and never did. Yes, the Madagascar exhibit at Omaha has a lot of species and that's great to see. I wish Bronx's Madagascar! had allotted more space in the building for additional Malagasy herps and fishes, but species aside which exhibit is better for the animals? Many here, myself included, would describe Omaha's Madagascar house as having been outdated by the time it opened with too many animals in too small or too inadequate of spaces (for any Europeans reading, imagine a slightly larger version of Plzen's house). You applaud this exhibit at Omaha for its diversity, but while that is definitely great many here would criticize it for what it lacks in ideal husbandry. Many of Omaha's exhibits have long received the same criticism, and the zoo has been working to change that with amazing new exhibits like their new Asian and sea lions exhibits. The result may be a slight loss in diversity, but overall the zoo is all the better for these developments and imo the collection has remained large and diverse.

You mentioned somewhere that people are hiking however far just to see a couple of antelope and that's disappointing. But how? The Sables are exhibited next to the Lions and iirc the Cheetahs are close by as well. There are also spider monkeys, pelicans, cranes, and Bongos in-between the African savanna area and the smaller African area the Sables are in. I understand your personal frustration at wanting to see more Sables but why would general audiences be disappointed when there are all those other animals to enjoy?

Finally, I would ask (as others have) that you stop spreading the inaccurate figures on collection sizes with no sources to back them up. They've been thoroughly debunked by @Chlidonias I believe on more than one of your recent threads.

~Thylo

 

[Lenny P. Lamb]

There is no reason for Omaha to be needing to keep additional white rhinos or breed them in a mixed savanna, there are plenty of places breeding the species and the AZA doesn't need more breeders at this time. The zoo only has two zebras, yes, but they're of the non-endangered and recommended to be replaced species that are also mixed with their elephants and therefore it's impractical for them to have a big breeding herd. Idk if not all are on-exhibit atm but I know for a fact that the zoo has more than two Sable Antelope. That said, these are also in a non-breeding situation because there's an abundance of the species in the AZA and so Omaha is acting as a holder not a breeder which is just as important for captive species management as is breeding. Same story with the ostriches, peccaries, and undoubtedly many more species they keep. This isn't a problem, nor does it mean the zoo is leveraging animals, nor does it mean the zoo is not committed to conservation or being a better zoo.

Besides, you want the zoo to carry more species, right? Well being a necessary non-breeding holding collection plan allows the zoo to be able to keep more animals within the space they have and allows for more mixing opportunities. The zoo can't accomplish this if they have double to triple of numbers of every species they keep, especially the megafauna. Not to mention that many animals, like Tammar Wallaby, don't have large enough populations for the zoo take more animals in from. This is why they went out of rock-wallaby already, the population is just too small and other zoos have space for breeding them whereas Omaha doesn't and never did. Yes, the Madagascar exhibit at Omaha has a lot of species and that's great to see. I wish Bronx's Madagascar! had allotted more space in the building for additional Malagasy herps and fishes, but species aside which exhibit is better for the animals? Many here, myself included, would describe Omaha's Madagascar house as having been outdated by the time it opened with too many animals in too small or too inadequate of spaces (for any Europeans reading, imagine a slightly larger version of Plzen's house). You applaud this exhibit at Omaha for its diversity, but while that is definitely great many here would criticize it for what it lacks in ideal husbandry. Many of Omaha's exhibits have long received the same criticism, and the zoo has been working to change that with amazing new exhibits like their new Asian and sea lions exhibits. The result may be a slight loss in diversity, but overall the zoo is all the better for these developments and imo the collection has remained large and diverse.

You mentioned somewhere that people are hiking however far just to see a couple of antelope and that's disappointing. But how? The Sables are exhibited next to the Lions and iirc the Cheetahs are close by as well. There are also spider monkeys, pelicans, cranes, and Bongos in-between the African savanna area and the smaller African area the Sables are in. I understand your personal frustration at wanting to see more Sables but why would general audiences be disappointed when there are all those other animals to enjoy?

Finally, I would ask (as others have) that you stop spreading the inaccurate figures on collection sizes with no sources to back them up. They've been thoroughly debunked by @Chlidonias I believe on more than one of your recent threads.

~Thylo

This is my last reply I'm signing off I have MUCH better things to do than arguing with you. NOTHING I said has been debunked. This is common information on zoo websites. Compare our species list with other major zoos before getting mad at me. I'm not the only one who feels this way. Your last comment about being debunked by a certain individual was especially rude. People who dont agree with you are also reading this and if you represent the omaha zoo in any way, you better watch what you are saying to everyone. I am done, so you are too.

 

[Lenny P. Lamb]

There is more to conservation than having lots of a particular species on exhibit. Animal management wise, it is probably appropriate to have that number of animals in those exhibits especially the rhinos which they’ve had trouble mixing with the giraffes and ostrich which was the original plan. There is way more to running a zoo than throwing a bunch of animals in an exhibit for the vague goal of “conservation”

My point to this is and I dont mean to be blunt, if we are going to be the biggest and best zoo then the numbers and species of our animals should reflect that. I mean nice Botanical gardens have an abundance of flowers. A great art museum has rare and numerous paintings and sculptures. A great zoo should have alot of species and numbers of animals. Since you all insist on sources simply go to wikapedia and it will state that the omaha zoo has 17,000 animals and 982 species. I dont see that. And bty the 750 bats ONLY account for the bats in the lied jungle. There are just as many if not more in expedition Madagascar and kingdoms of the night and the rotating bats off exhibit. I'm signing off of this echo forum.

 

[Westcoastperson]

My point to this is and I dont mean to be blunt, if we are going to be the biggest and best zoo then the numbers and species of our animals should reflect that. I mean nice Botanical gardens have an abundance of flowers. A great art museum has rare and numerous paintings and sculptures. A great zoo should have alot of species and numbers of animals. Since you all insist on sources simply go to wikapedia and it will state that the omaha zoo has 17,000 animals and 982 species. I dont see that. And bty the 750 bats ONLY account for the bats in the lied jungle. There are just as many if not more in expedition Madagascar and kingdoms of the night and the rotating bats off exhibit. I'm signing off of this echo forum.

Why can't you just be happy with the number of species you have. In terms of zoos, Omaha actually has a much better collection of rarities than most places. It also has some of the best and most beautiful exhibits in the world. I think you're forgetting one extremely important thing about zoo chat, none of your whinning and mopeing is going to change any of that. Go to the current leaders of Omaha and see what they say about it. Also when you constantly insist Omaha NEEDS to be the best it's extremely rude to everyone else who has their own favorite zoos. When you say all of this it doesn't sound like you think about the well-being of the animals, the zoo itself, the fans of the zoo, and the fans over other zoos. Your entire argument is extremely self-absorbed and rude and that's part of the reason people are being so rude to you, because to all of us you sound like a self-obsessed obnoxious brat who only cares about what he wants and doesn't think about anyone else. I mean you do realize the zoo has to pay for more animals right? That Omaha has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars building the best exhibits? You get what you get so don't throw a fit.