Rankings are subjective but really what is so special about Nashville's exhibit? It's just Elephants and Giraffe's in fairly big pastures. There is very little tree cover. The barns are on the small side as well. But like I said they are visually very boring.
The absolute best zoo exhibits in the world that are models for other zoos
- Thread starter DavidBrown
- Start date
Rankings are subjective but really what is so special about Nashville's exhibit? It's just Elephants and Giraffe's in fairly big pastures. There is very little tree cover. The barns are on the small side as well. But like I said they are visually very boring.
As far as my favorite exhibits off hand, I have only been to about a handful of zoo's, these two stand out for me.
Congo Gorilla Forest - Bronx Zoo is probably my current favorite.
My sentimental favorite from when I was a kid though had to be Jungle World in the Bronx Zoo as a kid the sheer size of it and the immersiveness was unlike anything I had ever experienced. Entering what felt like a full on rain forest was just incredible. It has certainly lost a bit of it's luster as far as it being outdated to an extent now compared ot The Congo forest, but it still can be a great time.
I too love the Giant River Otter exhibit at Zoo Miami. It has a two leveled portion with the full flowing river and great underwater viewing area, Sure it could be bigger but I also want to be able to observe the animals and not have to stand there and just barely see part of their body moving around way in the back of the environment and thats it.
Congo Gorilla Forest - Bronx Zoo is probably my current favorite.
My sentimental favorite from when I was a kid though had to be Jungle World in the Bronx Zoo as a kid the sheer size of it and the immersiveness was unlike anything I had ever experienced. Entering what felt like a full on rain forest was just incredible. It has certainly lost a bit of it's luster as far as it being outdated to an extent now compared ot The Congo forest, but it still can be a great time.
I too love the Giant River Otter exhibit at Zoo Miami. It has a two leveled portion with the full flowing river and great underwater viewing area, Sure it could be bigger but I also want to be able to observe the animals and not have to stand there and just barely see part of their body moving around way in the back of the environment and thats it.
GraysonDP
Well-Known Member
One thing that amazes me are how many top-notch zoos have substandard exhibits for large, popular animals. Here are a few off the top of my head:
San Diego Zoo- giraffe (disgraceful), lion, Indian rhinoceros, camel, grizzly bear, kangaroo, zebra
Bronx Zoo- grizzly bear, polar bear, leopard
Columbus Zoo- black rhino, reindeer, penguin, moose, cougar, orangutan
North Carolina Zoo- lion, cougar, black bear, brown bear
Zoo Miami- big cats and great apes
Cincinnati Zoo- bears, Asian elephant
Cleveland Metroparks Zoo- lion, gorilla, bears, tiger, leopard, etc
Pittsburgh Zoo- great apes, bears
Philadelphia Zoo- African hoofstock, primates
Jacksonville Zoo- gorilla, bonobo, leopard, black bear, red wolf, cougar, okapi, kangaroo
Lowry Park Zoo- chimpanzee, tiger, sloth bear
Dallas Zoo- Texas cats and primates in ZooNorth
Fort Worth Zoo- hippo, elephant, lion, black bear
Lincoln Park Zoo- rhino, big cats, bears
Los Angles Zoo- too many to name but notable are giraffe, zebra, lion, tiger, Indian rhino, hippo, etc.
Memphis Zoo- elephant, rhino, great apes, giraffe, zebra
Detroit Zoo- big cats and bears except polar bears
National Zoo- gorilla, orangutan, spectacled bear, others
Zoo Atlanta- elephant
I've never been there but from what I've heard Brookfield Zoo- gorilla, orangutan
Tbh Many of these species I'd rather see these zoos phase out until than can build better homes than see them kept in undesirable conditions that could be used to feed the anti-zoo crap. Just saying...
San Diego Zoo- giraffe (disgraceful), lion, Indian rhinoceros, camel, grizzly bear, kangaroo, zebra
Bronx Zoo- grizzly bear, polar bear, leopard
Columbus Zoo- black rhino, reindeer, penguin, moose, cougar, orangutan
North Carolina Zoo- lion, cougar, black bear, brown bear
Zoo Miami- big cats and great apes
Cincinnati Zoo- bears, Asian elephant
Cleveland Metroparks Zoo- lion, gorilla, bears, tiger, leopard, etc
Pittsburgh Zoo- great apes, bears
Philadelphia Zoo- African hoofstock, primates
Jacksonville Zoo- gorilla, bonobo, leopard, black bear, red wolf, cougar, okapi, kangaroo
Lowry Park Zoo- chimpanzee, tiger, sloth bear
Dallas Zoo- Texas cats and primates in ZooNorth
Fort Worth Zoo- hippo, elephant, lion, black bear
Lincoln Park Zoo- rhino, big cats, bears
Los Angles Zoo- too many to name but notable are giraffe, zebra, lion, tiger, Indian rhino, hippo, etc.
Memphis Zoo- elephant, rhino, great apes, giraffe, zebra
Detroit Zoo- big cats and bears except polar bears
National Zoo- gorilla, orangutan, spectacled bear, others
Zoo Atlanta- elephant
I've never been there but from what I've heard Brookfield Zoo- gorilla, orangutan
Tbh Many of these species I'd rather see these zoos phase out until than can build better homes than see them kept in undesirable conditions that could be used to feed the anti-zoo crap. Just saying...
I can understand your criticism of the polar bear exhibit, but I seriously disagree on the grizzly bear exhibit. It is very large, with a great variety of materials and spaces (a pond, a cave, cliffs, rocks, logs, etc.). They usually house three or four rescue bears there, and they have more than enough room to avoid each other if they want. Every time I am there, I am struck by the naturalness both of the exhibit's appearance and of the behavior by the bears in the exhibit.
As for the leopard, I assume you're talking about the exhibit in Jungle World. The exhibit's interior is quite complex, with all sorts of spaces and levels, although it is not terribly large. Leopards are not all that large themselves. My understanding is that the two on display are both females, which means they probably weigh somewhere between 75 and 125 pounds. An issue with big cats is that, unless they are hunting for food or a mate, their instinct is to rest and to avoid using energy. As a result, you could have an exhibit ten times bigger, but they would probably not move around any more than they do in the current exhibit.
Since this thread has been revived, I quickly read through it all. David's original criteria included not only exhibit quality and animal welfare, but also education about the animal's wild counterparts (including conservation issues).
It seems to me most of the example listed in this thread (including mine) focus solely on exhibit quality and appearance. There is almost no mention of education regarding animals in the wild and their conservation.
The reason for this is painfully obvious - zoos are simply not doing it! This is one reason I have recently become disillusioned with zoos (as mentioned on another thread on that topic). Zoos claim to be conservation centers, but most are not, at least not to the degree that they should be and could be. Here are some ideas off the top of my head that zoos could implement but almost certainly will not.
1) Covered valet bicycle parking. No need to pack a heavy lock or worry about your bicycle getting vandalized. There will be a fenced in area at the entrance manned by zoo staff and you will need to produce your valet ticket upon leaving to prove the bike is yours.
2) Restaurants that do not serve beef. Sorry burger lovers, your cattle use an unsustainable amount of land and ranchers are still the reason predators are routinely shot in all parts of the world.
3) Donations of serious money to field conservation. The AZA standard of two percent of operating costs going to conservation is appalling.
4) Zoo members encouraged (and staff/volunteers required) to participate in a local environmental project at least one day per year. Here in southern Arizona, it might be bufflegrass removal. On a coastal city it could be beach cleanup. The list is endless...
It seems to me most of the example listed in this thread (including mine) focus solely on exhibit quality and appearance. There is almost no mention of education regarding animals in the wild and their conservation.
The reason for this is painfully obvious - zoos are simply not doing it! This is one reason I have recently become disillusioned with zoos (as mentioned on another thread on that topic). Zoos claim to be conservation centers, but most are not, at least not to the degree that they should be and could be. Here are some ideas off the top of my head that zoos could implement but almost certainly will not.
1) Covered valet bicycle parking. No need to pack a heavy lock or worry about your bicycle getting vandalized. There will be a fenced in area at the entrance manned by zoo staff and you will need to produce your valet ticket upon leaving to prove the bike is yours.
2) Restaurants that do not serve beef. Sorry burger lovers, your cattle use an unsustainable amount of land and ranchers are still the reason predators are routinely shot in all parts of the world.
3) Donations of serious money to field conservation. The AZA standard of two percent of operating costs going to conservation is appalling.
4) Zoo members encouraged (and staff/volunteers required) to participate in a local environmental project at least one day per year. Here in southern Arizona, it might be bufflegrass removal. On a coastal city it could be beach cleanup. The list is endless...
bigfoot410
Well-Known Member
Arizona Docent-
I definitely agree with you that sometimes zoos and aquariums really do not go as far as they need in regards to conservation. However; there are some exhibits out there that do can be replicated in regards to the quality of the exhibit and conservation element.
Bronx Zoo does have the often celebrated Congo Forest which is incredibly high quality and for a conservation end it discusses in detail the Congo Forest and what the WCS is doing there. I know the extra fee is controversial; but it does make you think where your money can go. Zoos could replicate that with visitors choosing a percentage of their admission fee going to certain projects. Madagascar also does a great job highlighting conservation work including new national parks and studies being run in the country. For the Bronx Zoo at least, being run by a preeminent conservation organization has allowed it to at least highlight conservation around the world.
One additional thing: Mitsubishi Riverwalk- focuses on conservation and restoration of the Bronx River, including the removal of invasive plants, the return of fish species and beaver and how the project has expanded throughout the borough. It's a nice way for the zoo to highlight a conservation project surrounding the zoo. I think many aquariums do a good job of highlighting local conservation (Monterrey Bay being a great example).
As for your ideas- I don't know how the American consumer would react to no cheeseburger! It would be up to the zoos to educate; but I don't know how far that would go since it can be seen as taking away a freedom for beef. Volunteering for local projects is a great idea, I know the NY Aquarium does that in Coney Island with beach cleanups etc. I think zoos can keep highlighting more that can be done for local conservation including saving water, what to buy/not buy and where nearby visitors can see nature (local parks and wilderness areas).
I definitely agree with you that sometimes zoos and aquariums really do not go as far as they need in regards to conservation. However; there are some exhibits out there that do can be replicated in regards to the quality of the exhibit and conservation element.
Bronx Zoo does have the often celebrated Congo Forest which is incredibly high quality and for a conservation end it discusses in detail the Congo Forest and what the WCS is doing there. I know the extra fee is controversial; but it does make you think where your money can go. Zoos could replicate that with visitors choosing a percentage of their admission fee going to certain projects. Madagascar also does a great job highlighting conservation work including new national parks and studies being run in the country. For the Bronx Zoo at least, being run by a preeminent conservation organization has allowed it to at least highlight conservation around the world.
One additional thing: Mitsubishi Riverwalk- focuses on conservation and restoration of the Bronx River, including the removal of invasive plants, the return of fish species and beaver and how the project has expanded throughout the borough. It's a nice way for the zoo to highlight a conservation project surrounding the zoo. I think many aquariums do a good job of highlighting local conservation (Monterrey Bay being a great example).
As for your ideas- I don't know how the American consumer would react to no cheeseburger! It would be up to the zoos to educate; but I don't know how far that would go since it can be seen as taking away a freedom for beef. Volunteering for local projects is a great idea, I know the NY Aquarium does that in Coney Island with beach cleanups etc. I think zoos can keep highlighting more that can be done for local conservation including saving water, what to buy/not buy and where nearby visitors can see nature (local parks and wilderness areas).
You think Nashville elephant is boring with little trees? (The giraffe yard also has more trees inside the exhibit than just about any other giraffe yard I can remember).
Attachments
That probably wouldn't work so well, and if it did staffing costs would potentially take away money from conservation, I know bike lockers exist though, which are effectively a locker for your bike! You might have to pay a deposit, but you would get that back once finished using the service.
Beyond all this, the WCS actually spends almost as much on field conservation programs as it does on running all its four zoos and one aquarium. Per the most recent annual report, global programs got 40% of the budget, which would mean ~$93.4 million, while the zoos and aquaria, including visitor services, got 44%, which would be ~$102.7 million.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
I absolutely agree that the weak link is education!
Your listed ideas, while definitely laudable, place a substantial financial burden on organizations that tend to be struggling anyway. Each of these ideas will cost. The beef ban will deny zoos needed income. Perhaps over time, zoos could educate visitors to skip beef but long before that happens, visitors will simply skip eating there or even taking families to the zoo (no lunch????)
How do you propose resolving that?
Few zoos could afford these ideas.
With a more creative approach to education, zoos could remain fascinating and fun while getting visitors to think. Some zoo education departments are too timid, some are too impoverished, most lack adequate staff salaries to maintain a creative education staff. But there are also some zoos with brilliant education programs. These could be models of what might be done.
Improving education creativity (and daring) would add to the visitors' experience and could become self-supporting.
Congo Gorilla Forest has been mentioned. Consider how much of that complex is devoted to educating the visitor. Not simply the occasional i.d. sign, but entire galleries.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
I fear that you may (once again) be focused on your beloved Birmingham.
The trees in the elephant exhibit there were existing, and far older than almost anything on the Nashville property. And the Birmingham trees may not survive for many years, I expect. Then Birmingham, too, will be limited to what can reasonably be transplanted and maintained.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Before the old Kodiak Bear exhibit was semi-renovated a few years ago is was entirely concrete substrate, except for the tops of the natural cliffs which are of course rock. It is still by no means an exemplar brown bear exhibit, but neither is it as dreary as it used to be.