San Diego Zoo San Diego: The Perfect Zoo?

[Chlidonias]

What are the others? I’m imagining a couple of idiosyncratic choices.

PS. By all means go to Bronx, but I can’t think of a person who would be *less* likely to find New York agreeable.

I think they are probably all pretty predictable really. Of course should I happen to be travelling around in the USA I would be visiting a few more zoos than just these ones, but if I had to choose the most select, then (in no particular order) it would be the Bronx Zoo, San Diego Zoo, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Woodland Park Zoo, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, and Zoo Miami (although I would insist on calling it Miami Metro Zoo).

Liking the Bronx Zoo to New York City is similar to comparing apples to spaceships.

I think you missed the intent of CGSwan's comment.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

I'd still quite like to see the various people praising San Diego discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the collection aspect by aspect, as @ThylacineAlive intended with this thread

I've seen MANY threads which can basically be summed up with "San Diego is the best zoo in the world because it is world-famous, and it is world-famous because it is the best zoo in the world" with only brief discussion of why this is the case, and this thread (the concept of which was presumably intended to avoid this pitfall) seems to be going in exactly the same direction... which IMO is a pity, as a more in-depth discussion would have been interesting.

 

[snowleopard]

I'd still quite like to see the various people praising San Diego discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the collection aspect by aspect, as @ThylacineAlive intended with this thread

In my very first posting on this thread I alluded to a popular 2011 thread that I initiated that was called 'San Diego Zoo - The Greatest or Most Overrated' and so that is proof that I've been conflicted in my thoughts on San Diego for many years now. Does the zoo's worldwide fame make it easy to gloss over the crappy sections of the facility? Does the stunning climate and year-round accessibility make many of us give San Diego a thumbs-up even though there are Aye-ayes in corn-crib cages? I again brought up some of the zoo's failings in my 'Snowleopard's 2014 Road Trip' thread, as that summer I had just revisited Saint Louis Zoo and I thought at the time that the gap was getting closer between those two great American zoos.

In summary, I would not hesitate to put San Diego at the top of the pack in the USA, but both Omaha and Saint Louis have definitely closed the gap in recent years. San Diego will not relinquish its position without a fight, as the facility has enormous community support. For example, immediately after finishing up construction on the $70 million Africa Rocks section, San Diego announced another $70 million was going towards a complete overhaul of the Children's Zoo. Wow! The zoo just spent almost $2 million on a gigantic lion statue, which is more than most zoos spend in a year on new additions.

I've been told that I've glossed over the weaker aspects of San Diego Zoo and so I'll make amends right now.

- those metal cages containing Aye-ayes and other animals are a total disgrace and should have been demolished years ago. They are complete eyesores.

- the giraffe exhibit must be one of the most barren in the nation. In fact, I'd love to see a drastic overhaul of the entire 'Urban Jungle' area. Also, what kind of name is Urban Jungle? Ridiculous!

- I've never been a fan of the current Children's Zoo and I'm thankful that much of it will be bulldozed in the near future.

- Elephant Odyssey (2009) did not live up to expectations or its hefty price tag but it is certainly not an awful eyesore by any stretch of the imagination and it is an honourable failure. Having said that, what is up with that ghastly domestic horse exhibit? Ugh.

- The layout in Lost Forest is damn confusing! I've visited San Diego on 6 occasions and I still find it easy to become discombobulated in that zone.

 

[mweb08]

I'd still quite like to see the various people praising San Diego discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the collection aspect by aspect, as @ThylacineAlive intended with this thread

I've seen MANY threads which can basically be summed up with "San Diego is the best zoo in the world because it is world-famous, and it is world-famous because it is the best zoo in the world" with only brief discussion of why this is the case, and this thread (the concept of which was presumably intended to avoid this pitfall) seems to be going in exactly the same direction... which IMO is a pity, as a more in-depth discussion would have been interesting.

It's interesting that this post got so many likes considering I'm not sure I've ever seen an argument for the San Diego Diego that can be summed up like that.

Also, I have critiqued some of tyhlacine's critiques. I don't believe those received a response though.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

And while @snowleopard is more than capable of speaking for himself, I think you have got completely the wrong end of the stick with him as well. He is not saying “ignore the bad bits“, such as those elements that you gleefully point out in your criticism of the place (such as the aye aye for example); rather, he is suggesting that, on balance, San Diego is not too bad at all. As several wiser heads have mentioned above, no zoo is wholly perfect.

As you said, @snowleopard is capable of- and finally seems to be- defending his statements, but I think it's fair to point out that his original statement does read that way (at least to me and a few others) and the fact that he made his comment directly after I pointed out various poorer quality exhibit complexes and, until now, he hadn't actually responded to requests asking him to comment on them certainly made it appear as though that is what he was saying.

I will let @jayjds2 defend himself naturally, but I think it's very rude to suggest that he is not as wise as others commenting on this thread, especially considering I don't think he's ever actually accused anyone of calling the zoo perfect.. If fact, no one actually has on this thread, and I think everyone agrees that no zoo is wholly perfect. I think I have to admit that my opening statement was incorrect when I said I'd seen a comment recently stating that the zoo was the only perfect one, and I was misremembering a comment made on the ZooChat Cup Season 2 thread. That comment was one by yourself and can be found here. At the time of reading, your post came across to me that you believed the only flaw the zoo had was a lack of clear physical history, implying that you thought all the enclosures and exhibits were of high enough standard to be considered more or less perfect. I no longer think that's what your believe, though as others have stated it would be very interesting to hear your take on the exhibit flaws pointed out thus far. Going back to your comment, just for clarification as your post there and your post here might come across as contradictory, you think the zoo has a very clear sense of history and pride of it in its publications and overall- for lack of a better term- "feel" but not in an actual physical sense in the way of Bronx having Astor Court?

@mweb08 fair point, and I will make sure I address them shortly

~Thylo

 

[ThylacineAlive]

Good recaps so far of the various species at the zoo and their exhibits.

I'm rather surprised to see that you think the bonobo exhibit is on the small side. I'd say it's quite large. I can see your point more so with the gorilla exhibit even though I wouldn't describe it that way. I'd also say that the orangutans have ample climbing opportunities.

I'm also confused why the word concrete is being used so frequently to describe the natural ground of many of the exhibits that fail to have much or any grass.

I'll disagree with one of your opinions in a way that doesn't side with the San Diego Zoo. Your criticism of the lion exhibit is that it's dull, but while I don't agree with that at all, you say the size is fine while I'd say it's one of the smaller lion exhibits I've seen.

Not really sure what else I could say on the Bonobo enclosure except perhaps I'm just slightly misremembering the size. That section of Lost Forest is the one part of the zoo I had to rush through a bit to make sure I saw everything. As for the orangutan enclosure, there are a decent amount of climbing structures in there, but many appear to be more for the gibbons than the orangutans. The enclosure still features a lot of open grass.

Perhaps concrete is the wrong word and the term "mock rock" might be a better way to describe most of the enclosures I gave that criticism to. I'm assuming your referring to the hoofstock paddocks in particular? The ones I criticized that way all have barriers and walls made of the material, and the flooring of most, if not all of them appeared to be the same with a layer of sand or dirt thrown on top of it. The giraffe and Pronghorn enclosures in particular struck me this way.

The enclosure is not the largest, but it's not too small imo, and as such it's fine. As mentioned later on the zoo only has two(?) Lions and I don't think they're breeding the species so, while the size may definitely be a criticism, I don't think it's as big of an issue as, for example, the Sichuan Takin enclosure where they are breeding the species, or the Grizzly Bear enclosure where the space is hardly acceptable for one animal let alone two.

These are the only criticisms I could find, if there are others I missed feel free to point them out.

~Thylo

 

[mweb08]

Not really sure what else I could say on the Bonobo enclosure except perhaps I'm just slightly misremembering the size. That section of Lost Forest is the one part of the zoo I had to rush through a bit to make sure I saw everything. As for the orangutan enclosure, there are a decent amount of climbing structures in there, but many appear to be more for the gibbons than the orangutans. The enclosure still features a lot of open grass.

Perhaps concrete is the wrong word and the term "mock rock" might be a better way to describe most of the enclosures I gave that criticism to. I'm assuming your referring to the hoofstock paddocks in particular? The ones I criticized that way all have barriers and walls made of the material, and the flooring of most, if not all of them appeared to be the same with a layer of sand or dirt thrown on top of it. The giraffe and Pronghorn enclosures in particular struck me this way.

The enclosure is not the largest, but it's not too small imo, and as such it's fine. As mentioned later on the zoo only has two(?) Lions and I don't think they're breeding the species so, while the size may definitely be a criticism, I don't think it's as big of an issue as, for example, the Sichuan Takin enclosure where they are breeding the species, or the Grizzly Bear enclosure where the space is hardly acceptable for one animal let alone two.

These are the only criticisms I could find, if there are others I missed feel free to point them out.

~Thylo

Fair enough on the bonobos. That's a rather large exhibit imo. The orangutans definitely use those climbing structures along with the siamangs.

Yeah, I don't think the ground of those exhibits you speak of is concrete or much rock. They're dirt, generally pretty compacted. They generally don't have much of any grass because it wasn't given time to establish itself before the animals were allowed in and/or they didn't try hard to establish grass and/or because it's a dry climate. I do agree with the consensus that grass is preferred, but I think it's often overblown with some exhibits, elephants for example.

I can definitely add more disagreements with your critiques, but I'll chill for the moment.

 

[mweb08]

Adding to my points about weather mattering...

If this thread ever gets into comparing collections, something that I think clearly should be considered is availability of the animals. If they can't be seen on a given visit, that doesn't do anyone any good at that moment.

For instance, I was just at the Kansas City Zoo and missed out on seeing several species because it was too hot. The two biggest disappointments were the gorillas and leopardleopards, which were off exhibit even though we were at each exhibit before 11 in the morning.

I think that's a clear example of weather mattering. Besides the weather directly having a negative impact on the visitor because it's too hot or too cold or too rainy, it impacts the visitor because some of the animals they want to see are off exhibit or in some cases, in much worse indoor exhibits than the area both the animal and visitor could prefer them to ne in. And you know, the reason people visit zoos is to see animals. Their availability to be seen has to matter.

This is just not something I've ever had to concern myself with on a trip to the San Diego Zoo.

 

[TheEthiopianWolf03]

Well as a Californian native I think it’s time I put my personal opinions about the zoo in this thread. I was going to do it originally but I wanted to read what others said first.

My most recent San Diego trip was on the summer of 2015. I didn’t even finish a whole half of the zoo. I spent more than an hour in the discovery outpost. The zoo itself is large and it’s almost impossible to finish the zoo. My family and I had to leave to get our hotel rooms so we didn’t stay too long as previously mentioned but the highlights for me was the pangolin, the Ethiopian mountain adder, and my most treasured picture of any animal, the hippo and her calf. Yes I didn’t do much at this world famous zoo but from just this trip alone I had a lot of fun (sorry for childish terms, I was at middle school at the time). The safari park resonates with me more as the mammals at that facility have better exhibits but San Diego is the zoo that ignited a spark of wonder when you first go there. Something about it when you’re young fills you with awe when seeing these animals. The aviaries are amazing as well but I always have bad luck in walk trough aviaries so I never really see the more rare species but the exhibits themselves are the best in the zoo. I personally like the Owen’s aviary over the other one but that might be because of me rushing the rest of the zoo on my recent trip.


Like I said previously though, the zoo does have flaws. Extremely expensive prices that make me only go to the zoo every 5 years, parking, and large crowds that scare the animals are just problems that come with a “perfect” zoo like San Diego. But there are some things that need to be fixed. The exhibits for many of the larger mammals are mediocre at best. I saw some of the exhibits on the bus tour and was surprised to see from such a world class zoo the lack of, well, design was put for the giraffes, rhinos, and bear grotto exhibits. Some of these exhibits are also extremely outdated. The penguin exhibit at the time was also meh but with the new African rocks exhibit opened, it looks much better. Geladas are also an amazing addition but I can’t look at their exhibit without seeing Bronx’s exhibit, which to me, is the best gelada exhibit in the nation.


Overall the zoo is a world class zoo, not perfect. As I said before, there is no such thing as a perfect zoo. On my list of top zoos in California (which I’ll make a proper thread on that later) it’s under the safari park and barely edges out against Fresno if not for San Diego’s bird collection.



As for why people love this zoo? Definitely weather is a major factor as the area is sunny almost every day with the occasional breeze of wind. Pandas play also a major role as they are huge crowd pleasers. It might also be how the zoo’s located on the map as sea world is another popular attraction that’s nearby. Whatever the reason is, people adore this zoo. But just because the majority of average citizens think this zoo is “world class”, it does not mean the zoo is perfect. I think that’s the best summary of the zoo’s popularity.

 

[Coelacanth18]

@mweb08 Re: Adding to my points about weather mattering...

Hopefully I haven't missed your point here. If I have, let me know.

I could accept that zoos should be graded on how well they adapt their collection and exhibits to the climate imposed on them, but I can't agree that the weather itself should be a factor. If all else is equal between a California zoo and a Minnesota zoo, does the California zoo win by default because the temperature and humidity is more pleasant there? The plain fact is that San Diego Zoo is blessed by its location in a way that most other zoos aren't. If that's to be considered a factor in judging a zoo beyond just personal preference, why not also rate zoos on how large or how hilly they are, or the safety of the neighborhood they're in?

 

[Daktari JG]

Yes the 26 million figure is the city. The zoo itself gets about 3 million- of course many of the zoo visitors come from St. Louis.

I got the figure here
St. Louis Tourism Facts

It doesn't say from within the St Louis metro area or not , though.

 

[mweb08]

@mweb08 Re: Adding to my points about weather mattering...

Hopefully I haven't missed your point here. If I have, let me know.

I could accept that zoos should be graded on how well they adapt their collection and exhibits to the climate imposed on them, but I can't agree that the weather itself should be a factor. If all else is equal between a California zoo and a Minnesota zoo, does the California zoo win by default because the temperature and humidity is more pleasant there? The plain fact is that San Diego Zoo is blessed by its location in a way that most other zoos aren't. If that's to be considered a factor in judging a zoo beyond just personal preference, why not also rate zoos on how large or how hilly they are, or the safety of the neighborhood they're in?

It's not totally fair, but there's no doubt that the experiences of both visitors and animals is tremendously affected by the climate. And that's one is already in the zoo unlike the neighborhood. But I would have no problem giving slight consideration to those factors you mention. They clearly aren't anywhere near as important as climate though imo.

 

[Daktari JG]

Weather is central to what makes one zoo better than another.
A million bucks goes a lot farther to exhibit a species in San Diego that it will
in say New York- there is just no way around that.

While a 95 degree day in San Diego might be worse than a New York 90, compare below zero with the worst San Diego can offer. The visitor experience goes a long way in their perception of where they visited and weather is often a big factor.

If you're going to talk about a perfect zoo- where it is located has to be a very large factor.

 

[mweb08]

Weather is central to what makes one zoo better than another.
A million bucks goes a lot farther to exhibit a species in San Diego that it will
in say New York- there is just no way around that.

While a 95 degree day in San Diego might be worse than a New York 90, compare below zero with the worst San Diego can offer. The visitor experience goes a long way in their perception of where they visited and weather is often a big factor.

If you're going to talk about a perfect zoo- where it is located has to be a very large factor.

Additionally, a 95 degree day in San Diego actually isn't as bad as a 90 degree day in New York due to the breeze typically found in San Diego and especially the humidity difference, which is paramount.

 

[TZDugong]

@mweb08 Re: Adding to my points about weather mattering...

Hopefully I haven't missed your point here. If I have, let me know.

I could accept that zoos should be graded on how well they adapt their collection and exhibits to the climate imposed on them, but I can't agree that the weather itself should be a factor. If all else is equal between a California zoo and a Minnesota zoo, does the California zoo win by default because the temperature and humidity is more pleasant there? The plain fact is that San Diego Zoo is blessed by its location in a way that most other zoos aren't. If that's to be considered a factor in judging a zoo beyond just personal preference, why not also rate zoos on how large or how hilly they are, or the safety of the neighborhood they're in?

While weather may not be a completely fair way to judge a zoo, I’d say that it is a factor, although not as significant as exhibitry or collection. Whether you like it or not, weather can be a factor in whether you enjoy a zoo or you don’t enjoy it. I’m certain that everyone would enjoy seeing say, Saint Louis if it was sunny and pleasant, more so than seeing Saint Louis when it was -10 and snowing. Weather may not be a fair category, but not everything’s fair.

So to answer your Minnesota vs California question, yes I think California wins, although only by a little. I find that other factors are more important, but weather should definitely be a least a tiny bit important.

 

[birdsandbats]

I would say these are the most famous zoos:

San Diego
Colombus (because of Jack Hanna)
Georgia Aquarium (because of Jeff Corwin)
Australia Zoo (because of Steve Irwin)
Central Park (because of its New York location and Madagascar)

That's it. I had always assumed places like London ad Berlin and Singapore had zoos, but I had never directly heard of them until I joined this forum.

 

[Mehdi]

I would say these are the most famous zoos:

San Diego
Colombus (because of Jack Hanna)
Georgia Aquarium (because of Jeff Corwin)
Australia Zoo (because of Steve Irwin)
Central Park (because of its New York location and Madagascar)

That's it. I had always assumed places like London ad Berlin and Singapore had zoos, but I had never directly heard of them until I joined this forum.

I would consider myself a zoo-nerd and I haven't heard of Jack Hanna or Jeff Corwing (yeah, shame on me) so I definitely do not think most non-zoo goers know them (I did say most, not any). Besides, Columbus and Georgia Aquarium definitely aren't that famous outside of the United States (and I'm not sure they are that famous in the United States even, barring once again zoo nerds; although of course I don't live there so I could totally be wrong) and even though Steve Irwin is famous, Australia Zoo isn't that well-known by "regular people" as far as I can see.

I've always had an interest for zoos but when I was young the only zoos I knew were San Diego, Beijing (don't ask why), Berlin and local zoos or zoos I had already visited. Barcelona was one of them too but that is because of Snowflake.

 

[birdsandbats]

I would consider myself a zoo-nerd and I haven't heard of Jack Hanna or Jeff Corwing (yeah, shame on me) so I definitely do not think most non-zoo goers know them (I did say most, not any).

Really? They are famous naturalists in the US, and I am sure they are not unheard of elsewhere.

(and I'm not sure they are that famous in the United States even, barring once again zoo nerds; although of course I don't live there so I could totally be wrong)

They are pretty well-known over here.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

I grew up on Steve Irwin and Jeff Corwin, I'd never heard of Jack Hanna until around the time I joined this forum. Even then, I never associated Irwin with the Australia Zoo and until this very moment I did not know Corwin was associated with Georgia Aquarium.

~Thylo

 

[Coelacanth18]

But I would have no problem giving slight consideration to those factors you mention.

I actually meant them as examples of factors I would *not* consider, for the same reasons I wouldn't consider climate. But since that was our initial disagreement, our additional splits here make sense.

A million bucks goes a lot farther to exhibit a species in San Diego that it will
in say New York- there is just no way around that.

On the contrary, there are multiple ways around that. One, this logic doesn't apply to indoor exhibits, so a million bucks would go the same way in either location for something indoors. Second, you could build great outdoor enclosures for temperate or polar species in New York rather than tropical species, in which case the million bucks would go exactly the same distance. Third, why is financial ease even a factor? A million bucks could go a lot farther in Texas than in New York because materials, wages, and construction costs are all lower; does that make Texas zoos automatically a little better?

I’m certain that everyone would enjoy seeing say, Saint Louis if it was sunny and pleasant, more so than seeing Saint Louis when it was -10 and snowing.

Which is why most people visit Saint Louis when it's not -10 and snowing. Zoos are busier on days with better weather. San Diego does have more of those days than Saint Louis, so hypothetically your chances of experiencing good weather are better at SD than at SL. I still think this is irrelevant to the quality of the zoos themselves.

Whether you like it or not, weather can be a factor in whether you enjoy a zoo or you don’t enjoy it.

A bomb threat or seeing Jane Goodall would also be factors that affect my enjoyment level at a zoo. Should every potential factor outside a zoo's control be taken into account when judging it? (Re my initial response to mweb.)

So in summary: Climate. The zoo has no control over it. It could affect a visitor's experience, but it could also not. I don't buy that it has an impact on the quality of exhibits or species collections. And whether or not it has an impact on animal welfare depends on how the zoo deals with it, either collection-wise (ex. will we keep elephants?) or exhibit-wise (ex. how will we keep elephants?). I don't see any reason to judge zoos based on geographic lottery, and it's additionally unfair to northern clime zoos that went the distance.