In his defence I think these are actually all pretty valid questions, constructive criticisms and statements and he need not subscribe to group-think about zoos or adopt others standards about what makes a "good zoo" as it is a subjective view, right ?
With the current climate of breeding selective species one US Zoo is the same as another. Only difference is the miles between them. I'm finding no matter which zoo one go's to to starting to be very boring experience species wise. I hear chatter of saving endangered animals/species I see animals seen on tv: meerkats, nake mole rats, flamingo's, most zoo's have tigers. I question about all the other animals that have no zoo value that remain unseen and disappeared from zoo collections. I see fake environments, offering of fake food stands, telling me to be concerned about wildlife all the while picking my packet for the total experience tour, entertainment experience as to encourage a culture of comfortablely numb people to wake up and see other living things we share this planet with. I find the repeated experiences of zoo's actually boring and wonder if educating people to understanding is even possible anymore. Just being real about whats really going down.
Here are a few things you may want to think about (not for OC, just acknowledging your post
). Before I state my opinions, I think it is important to emphasize that I am not American and have never been to a zoo in the USA. However, I have picked up a fair bit of information on them and the associations they form a part of from my time on this site.
Firstly, while I see your point about the AZA phasing out multiple species and instead encouraging the breeding of others, it is objectively incorrect to say they are all the same - a few may well be similar - I acknowledged that in my starting post - but painting them all with the same brush and saying they are all identical is shortsighted and hyperbolic. I understand your point of view - having read through numerous reviews of various zoos across the country, I do tend to mix a few up. And yes, there have been trends replicated many times throughout the US recently; the one that comes to mind in particular is the 'Asian temple' exhibit format. However the inference that, because of this trend towards a common format, the institutions themselves have sacrificed their own uniqueness is misinformed. Even within a single state - take Ohio for instance - we see that Cleveland is a totally different place to Cincinnati, or Toledo. While on the surface they may see the same, the collections, exhibits and history are entirely different in almost all cases. Part of this 'problem' is a result of American zoos' relatively short histories. many of them are fairly recent developments, having emerged in the last 50-100 years. And while this is perhaps not immediately apparent as a cause for what you have interpreted as excessive similarity, it becomes clear when this type of zoo is directly comparable with a zoo that has been around for several centuries.
The best, closest example that I could find that I have any sort of experience with is the comparison between la Ménagerie du Jardin des Plantes in Paris, founded in 1626 and therefore almost 4 centuries old (over twice the age of any zoo across the pond) and le Zooparc de Beauval, also in France and within three hours' drive of the menagerie, a mere 40 years old. While the Menagerie has a clear aura and identity to it that is lacking in Beauval. This is just a function of age - the Menagerie has come through countless years of turmoil, while Beauval has sprung up within the last decade.
And this results in a similar problem in the USA. These zoos perhaps have not truly discovered an identity of their own, relying on the formula that has been proven to work time and again in neighbouring zoos. To survive in this fast-changing world, they must evolve, but also make sure they are in line with current ideals and norms. Otherwise, they will not stay afloat long enough to develop an identity of their own. I hope that has vaguely answered your query about that.
Secondly, you refer to zoos publicising their feats of conservation while also pushing common species to the forefront. Not entirely sure what you meant when you said 'most zoos have tigers' - indeed, most large zoos have tigers - what is your problem with this? Tigers are endangered - several of the subspecies are critically endangered. What is the issue with zoos correctly pointing out their role in tiger conservation both in and ex situ, as well as keeping them in the first place? As for the other species you mention, this publicity is necessary to keep the zoo's income up so as to fund projects to help, smaller, less charismatic species. Try as you might, the public will never be as interested in a rare frog or pupfish as a lion or elephant.
Moving on, you talk about 'fake environments'. I don't quite understand your point. All zoo exhibits are fake environments, whether they like it or not.
This,
this and
this are all fake environments, are they not? As for 'picking your packet' with experience tours, it is your choice whether or not you want to do these things - I agree the prices are high and at times ridiculous, but it isn't as if you are forced into it, and it goes to a good cause, or at least a better one than a theme park or circus for example.
I also find that your pessimism about education really quite staggering. It has already been shown that as a result of education both in zoos and outside of them, people are becoming more and more aware of the natural world and beginning to think more about their impact on it. It is not by acknowledging defeat and giving up that the planet will be saved, but by proactive, hopeful and ever-persistent people raising awareness and continuing, however bleak it might seem. I find that people who are aware of the danger our planet is in yet choose not to be active and instead gripe and grumble about others' efforts are much more unhelpful than those who have no clue in the first place.
Hopefully that has answered your queries in a satisfying manner - you raise some interesting, though not so original points about the future of zoos, but I don't think you are right.
.
Both are set in the woods in the Appalachian foothills. They both have nonsensical pathways that get confusing, and both have an abundance of poor exhibits (Claws N Paws more so).