zoocentral
Well-Known Member
The AZA Zoos of Idaho: Zoo Boise and the Idaho Falls Zoo at Tautphaus Park
The state of Idaho is home to only two zoological institutions accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA): Zoo Boise and the Idaho Falls Zoo at Tautphaus Park. Both facilities are municipally owned and operated, a model that brings with it both stability and constraint. Unlike private or state-supported zoological institutions, city zoos are deeply tied to the financial capacity, political priorities, and cultural identity of their municipalities. Their ability to innovate, expand, and maintain relevance is closely linked to local tax bases and civic will.
Zoo Boise, situated in the state’s rapidly growing capital, and the Idaho Falls Zoo, set in a small but strategically located city near Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, represent two very different contexts. Each zoo serves its community in unique ways, yet both are also limited by the realities of municipal ownership. This review examines both institutions side by side, evaluating their exhibit theming, design, animal collections, guest experience, and broader institutional identity.
Institutional Context
City ownership of zoos can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, municipal operation can ensure basic stability: staff salaries are tied to city employment structures, and core operational funding often comes through city budgets. On the other hand, this arrangement leaves zoos vulnerable to the shifting winds of local politics, budget priorities, and leadership changes. Growth and innovation are easily stifled when institutions must compete for resources against parks, libraries, and other civic needs.
Idaho Falls, with its relatively small population, benefits from heavy tourist traffic thanks to its proximity to Yellowstone and the Tetons. In theory, this positions the Idaho Falls Zoo to be a destination for families visiting the area. In practice, however, the zoo has not capitalized on this potential. Its exhibits remain modest and dated, and it has not developed the immersive qualities necessary to draw tourists away from the region’s overwhelming natural offerings.
Boise, by contrast, has grown rapidly in both population and economic strength. As the state capital, it should in theory support a zoo capable of serving as both a major family destination and a conservation institution with national relevance. Zoo Boise has indeed seen investment, with a 2021 master plan leading to projects like the Gorongosa National Park exhibit, Red Panda Passage, and renovations to the Small Animal Kingdom. Yet despite this investment, the zoo’s projects often feel utilitarian rather than inspired. They update facilities but fail to create the kind of immersive, educationally rich environments that could position the zoo as a leader in the Intermountain West.
The conclusion is unavoidable: city ownership has given these institutions stability, but at the cost of vision. Both remain small, modest facilities when they could be so much more.
Exhibit Theming and Storytelling
Both zoos organize the bulk of their exhibits around standard geographic regions: Africa, Asia, South America, Australia, and North America. They also house a few taxonomy-based collections, such as primate centers or bird exhibits. This structure is common in small to mid-sized zoos, and in theory it offers guests a coherent, educationally grounded journey through the animal kingdom. In practice, however, the storytelling often falls flat.
At Zoo Boise, this weakness is particularly evident in the African Plains exhibit. The section attempts to transport visitors to an “African village,” complete with anthropological displays. Unfortunately, the execution leans on dated and problematic tropes, presenting Africa as an underdeveloped continent defined by simplistic lifestyles. The educational materials reflect a distinctly Western perspective and lack meaningful interpretation. Worse, many of the displays are unkempt, dirty, and seemingly abandoned. What should serve as a cultural context instead undermines the zoo’s educational mission.
Not all is bleak at Boise, however. The Gorongosa National Park exhibit stands as a much more thoughtful approach, highlighting a lesser-known African conservation landscape and introducing species beyond the typical “Big Five.” Here, at least, the zoo begins to tell a story that goes beyond superficial geography.
At the Idaho Falls Zoo, thematic execution is similarly uneven. The zoo’s Patagonia exhibit is a rare and refreshing focus on a specific and underrepresented region. Featuring guanaco as a central species, the exhibit departs from the standard menu of jaguars and capybaras seen elsewhere. Yet elsewhere in the zoo, thematic interpretation is limited. Signage tends to be species-specific rather than exhibit-driven, and opportunities to tell holistic stories about ecosystems are often missed.
In both institutions, geographic theming serves as a basic organizing principle, but it is rarely elevated into true storytelling. Exhibits convey where animals are from, but not what makes those ecosystems unique, threatened, or worth conserving.
Exhibit Design
Exhibit design is perhaps where the limitations of both facilities are most evident. Newer projects at each zoo stand in stark contrast to older sections, with little effort to create a balanced overall aesthetic. Rather than lifting the whole institution, new projects make the deficiencies of legacy exhibits more glaring.
At Zoo Boise, the standout success is Red Panda Passage, which opened in 2025. The exhibit is significant within the AZA context, housing both subspecies of red panda and providing critical breeding and holding facilities. With three outdoor yards, overhead tunnels, multiple dayrooms, and five dens, the exhibit is tailored to the species’ needs and AZA population goals. It represents a rare example of Boise innovating in a meaningful way. Yet elsewhere, the zoo has invested in generic netted enclosures for primates and birds, which feel functional but uninspired.
At the Idaho Falls Zoo, the Patagonia and Australia exhibits stand out for their mixed-species compositions and relatively thoughtful layouts. Yet overall, habitats tend to be small and unimaginative. Primates are housed in standard netted cages, and carnivores in modest fenced yards. There is no real effort to blend newer and older exhibits into a coherent whole, leaving the zoo feeling more like a patchwork of eras than a cohesive institution.
In short, both zoos are investing, but without a vision that ties design into broader thematic or conservation narratives.
Animal Collection
For their size and municipal limitations, both zoos maintain surprisingly robust and diverse collections. Overlap between the two is minimal, giving each zoo its own character and ensuring that Idahoans have access to a wide variety of species across the state.
At Zoo Boise, the Gorongosa exhibit in particular stands out for avoiding the typical African megafauna and instead highlighting lesser-known species. Notable rarities include olive baboon, vervet, spotted-necked otter, palm-nut vulture, and pied crow.
At the Idaho Falls Zoo, the collection is arguably even more impressive given the institution’s size. Highlights include collared brown lemur, Bornean gibbon, red-flanked duiker, guanaco, New Guinea singing dog, silvery-cheeked hornbill, red-and-yellow barbet, and black-headed parrot. These species lend the zoo a distinctiveness often missing in small municipal collections.
Where both facilities fall short is in their representation of reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Herpetological collections are particularly thin, a surprising omission given the educational potential of these groups.
Guest Amenities and Experience
Both zoos benefit from attractive physical settings. Each is embedded within a city park, complete with mature trees and natural water features. Both maintain a creek running through the grounds, though neither has capitalized on this feature to create distinctive habitats or guest spaces. The mature landscaping does, however, provide shade and a pleasant aesthetic.
In terms of amenities, Zoo Boise edges ahead with two food outlets, though both zoos would benefit enormously from the addition of a sit-down restaurant. Such facilities not only extend guest dwell time but also elevate the overall visitor experience. Gift shops at both are standard fare, offering the usual mix of plush toys and souvenirs. Idaho Falls earns a point for novelty with the sale of greater rhea eggs, an unusual and memorable item.
Navigationally, both zoos are easy to traverse. Idaho Falls has recently upgraded its wayfinding signage, which improves orientation and contributes to a more polished experience. Pathways are wide, logical, and accessible. Boise is equally straightforward to navigate, though its thematic inconsistencies weaken the sense of journey.
Animal Welfare and Husbandry
As AZA institutions, both zoos meet baseline welfare and regulatory standards. Enclosures provide adequate space and care, and there is no indication of outright neglect. However, there is a noticeable gap between compliance and excellence.
At both zoos, primate and big cat habitats are undersized and lack meaningful environmental enrichment. Monkeys are housed in standard netted cages, and carnivores in modest fenced yards. Neither facility has yet embraced the trend toward larger, more complex, and more enriching environments that are becoming standard across the AZA.
In terms of mixed-species exhibits, the Idaho Falls Zoo fares better. Its Australia and Patagonia zones demonstrate creative combinations that add dynamism to the visitor experience. Zoo Boise is weaker in this respect, though the nyala with ground-hornbills and vervet with spotted-necked otters represent thoughtful attempts at integration.
Education and Conservation
Education and conservation messaging is an area where both zoos struggle, albeit in different ways.
At Zoo Boise, conservation is heavily emphasized as part of the institution’s branding and identity. Yet the actual delivery of educational content is weak. With the exception of the Gorongosa exhibit, signage is often limited to species’ common names, offering little context or interpretation. The result is a disconnect between rhetoric and reality: conservation is loudly proclaimed but thinly communicated.
At the Idaho Falls Zoo, signage is more robust and recently updated. Species information is clear, but interpretation tends to be animal-specific rather than ecosystem- or theme-based. As a result, exhibits fail to tell broader stories. Guests are presented with facts, but not narratives, and observation suggests that most visitors spend little time engaging with signs.
In both institutions, educational materials represent a missed opportunity to deepen visitor understanding and investment in conservation.
Identities in Contrast
Despite their similarities, each zoo has developed its own institutional character.
Zoo Boise positions itself as a conservation-oriented city zoo, presenting animals from around the globe and emphasizing its role in international conservation efforts. Yet the execution is inconsistent, with unimaginative exhibit design and weak interpretive content undermining its stated mission.
The Idaho Falls Zoo functions more clearly as a children’s zoo. Its scale, design, and interpretive strategies are aimed at introducing young audiences to the diversity of the animal kingdom. While it succeeds in being approachable, it fails to establish itself as a destination attraction, despite the tourist potential of its location.
Conclusion:
Together, the two institutions complement one another, offering Idahoans access to a surprisingly wide range of species and experiences.
Idaho’s two AZA zoos occupy a modest but important niche within the state’s cultural and educational landscape. Each provides opportunities for local families to encounter wildlife, each contributes to conservation programs, and each enriches its city. Yet both are held back by the limitations of municipal ownership, lack of state support, and the absence of a unified statewide zoological vision.
Zoo Boise has made strides in updating its facilities, but without imaginative design or strong interpretation, its investments feel more utilitarian than transformative. The Idaho Falls Zoo has curated an admirably diverse collection, but remains modest in scale and fails to capture the tourist potential of its location.
On the national stage, both institutions are overshadowed by larger, more innovative zoos. But within Idaho, they remain valuable institutions with untapped potential. A coordinated, state-supported approach could elevate them from local amenities to true regional leaders. Until then, Zoo Boise and the Idaho Falls Zoo at Tautphaus Park will remain what they are: small city zoos, admirable in their efforts, but limited in their impact.
The state of Idaho is home to only two zoological institutions accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA): Zoo Boise and the Idaho Falls Zoo at Tautphaus Park. Both facilities are municipally owned and operated, a model that brings with it both stability and constraint. Unlike private or state-supported zoological institutions, city zoos are deeply tied to the financial capacity, political priorities, and cultural identity of their municipalities. Their ability to innovate, expand, and maintain relevance is closely linked to local tax bases and civic will.
Zoo Boise, situated in the state’s rapidly growing capital, and the Idaho Falls Zoo, set in a small but strategically located city near Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, represent two very different contexts. Each zoo serves its community in unique ways, yet both are also limited by the realities of municipal ownership. This review examines both institutions side by side, evaluating their exhibit theming, design, animal collections, guest experience, and broader institutional identity.
Institutional Context
City ownership of zoos can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, municipal operation can ensure basic stability: staff salaries are tied to city employment structures, and core operational funding often comes through city budgets. On the other hand, this arrangement leaves zoos vulnerable to the shifting winds of local politics, budget priorities, and leadership changes. Growth and innovation are easily stifled when institutions must compete for resources against parks, libraries, and other civic needs.
Idaho Falls, with its relatively small population, benefits from heavy tourist traffic thanks to its proximity to Yellowstone and the Tetons. In theory, this positions the Idaho Falls Zoo to be a destination for families visiting the area. In practice, however, the zoo has not capitalized on this potential. Its exhibits remain modest and dated, and it has not developed the immersive qualities necessary to draw tourists away from the region’s overwhelming natural offerings.
Boise, by contrast, has grown rapidly in both population and economic strength. As the state capital, it should in theory support a zoo capable of serving as both a major family destination and a conservation institution with national relevance. Zoo Boise has indeed seen investment, with a 2021 master plan leading to projects like the Gorongosa National Park exhibit, Red Panda Passage, and renovations to the Small Animal Kingdom. Yet despite this investment, the zoo’s projects often feel utilitarian rather than inspired. They update facilities but fail to create the kind of immersive, educationally rich environments that could position the zoo as a leader in the Intermountain West.
The conclusion is unavoidable: city ownership has given these institutions stability, but at the cost of vision. Both remain small, modest facilities when they could be so much more.
Exhibit Theming and Storytelling
Both zoos organize the bulk of their exhibits around standard geographic regions: Africa, Asia, South America, Australia, and North America. They also house a few taxonomy-based collections, such as primate centers or bird exhibits. This structure is common in small to mid-sized zoos, and in theory it offers guests a coherent, educationally grounded journey through the animal kingdom. In practice, however, the storytelling often falls flat.
At Zoo Boise, this weakness is particularly evident in the African Plains exhibit. The section attempts to transport visitors to an “African village,” complete with anthropological displays. Unfortunately, the execution leans on dated and problematic tropes, presenting Africa as an underdeveloped continent defined by simplistic lifestyles. The educational materials reflect a distinctly Western perspective and lack meaningful interpretation. Worse, many of the displays are unkempt, dirty, and seemingly abandoned. What should serve as a cultural context instead undermines the zoo’s educational mission.
Not all is bleak at Boise, however. The Gorongosa National Park exhibit stands as a much more thoughtful approach, highlighting a lesser-known African conservation landscape and introducing species beyond the typical “Big Five.” Here, at least, the zoo begins to tell a story that goes beyond superficial geography.
At the Idaho Falls Zoo, thematic execution is similarly uneven. The zoo’s Patagonia exhibit is a rare and refreshing focus on a specific and underrepresented region. Featuring guanaco as a central species, the exhibit departs from the standard menu of jaguars and capybaras seen elsewhere. Yet elsewhere in the zoo, thematic interpretation is limited. Signage tends to be species-specific rather than exhibit-driven, and opportunities to tell holistic stories about ecosystems are often missed.
In both institutions, geographic theming serves as a basic organizing principle, but it is rarely elevated into true storytelling. Exhibits convey where animals are from, but not what makes those ecosystems unique, threatened, or worth conserving.
Exhibit Design
Exhibit design is perhaps where the limitations of both facilities are most evident. Newer projects at each zoo stand in stark contrast to older sections, with little effort to create a balanced overall aesthetic. Rather than lifting the whole institution, new projects make the deficiencies of legacy exhibits more glaring.
At Zoo Boise, the standout success is Red Panda Passage, which opened in 2025. The exhibit is significant within the AZA context, housing both subspecies of red panda and providing critical breeding and holding facilities. With three outdoor yards, overhead tunnels, multiple dayrooms, and five dens, the exhibit is tailored to the species’ needs and AZA population goals. It represents a rare example of Boise innovating in a meaningful way. Yet elsewhere, the zoo has invested in generic netted enclosures for primates and birds, which feel functional but uninspired.
At the Idaho Falls Zoo, the Patagonia and Australia exhibits stand out for their mixed-species compositions and relatively thoughtful layouts. Yet overall, habitats tend to be small and unimaginative. Primates are housed in standard netted cages, and carnivores in modest fenced yards. There is no real effort to blend newer and older exhibits into a coherent whole, leaving the zoo feeling more like a patchwork of eras than a cohesive institution.
In short, both zoos are investing, but without a vision that ties design into broader thematic or conservation narratives.
Animal Collection
For their size and municipal limitations, both zoos maintain surprisingly robust and diverse collections. Overlap between the two is minimal, giving each zoo its own character and ensuring that Idahoans have access to a wide variety of species across the state.
At Zoo Boise, the Gorongosa exhibit in particular stands out for avoiding the typical African megafauna and instead highlighting lesser-known species. Notable rarities include olive baboon, vervet, spotted-necked otter, palm-nut vulture, and pied crow.
At the Idaho Falls Zoo, the collection is arguably even more impressive given the institution’s size. Highlights include collared brown lemur, Bornean gibbon, red-flanked duiker, guanaco, New Guinea singing dog, silvery-cheeked hornbill, red-and-yellow barbet, and black-headed parrot. These species lend the zoo a distinctiveness often missing in small municipal collections.
Where both facilities fall short is in their representation of reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Herpetological collections are particularly thin, a surprising omission given the educational potential of these groups.
Guest Amenities and Experience
Both zoos benefit from attractive physical settings. Each is embedded within a city park, complete with mature trees and natural water features. Both maintain a creek running through the grounds, though neither has capitalized on this feature to create distinctive habitats or guest spaces. The mature landscaping does, however, provide shade and a pleasant aesthetic.
In terms of amenities, Zoo Boise edges ahead with two food outlets, though both zoos would benefit enormously from the addition of a sit-down restaurant. Such facilities not only extend guest dwell time but also elevate the overall visitor experience. Gift shops at both are standard fare, offering the usual mix of plush toys and souvenirs. Idaho Falls earns a point for novelty with the sale of greater rhea eggs, an unusual and memorable item.
Navigationally, both zoos are easy to traverse. Idaho Falls has recently upgraded its wayfinding signage, which improves orientation and contributes to a more polished experience. Pathways are wide, logical, and accessible. Boise is equally straightforward to navigate, though its thematic inconsistencies weaken the sense of journey.
Animal Welfare and Husbandry
As AZA institutions, both zoos meet baseline welfare and regulatory standards. Enclosures provide adequate space and care, and there is no indication of outright neglect. However, there is a noticeable gap between compliance and excellence.
At both zoos, primate and big cat habitats are undersized and lack meaningful environmental enrichment. Monkeys are housed in standard netted cages, and carnivores in modest fenced yards. Neither facility has yet embraced the trend toward larger, more complex, and more enriching environments that are becoming standard across the AZA.
In terms of mixed-species exhibits, the Idaho Falls Zoo fares better. Its Australia and Patagonia zones demonstrate creative combinations that add dynamism to the visitor experience. Zoo Boise is weaker in this respect, though the nyala with ground-hornbills and vervet with spotted-necked otters represent thoughtful attempts at integration.
Education and Conservation
Education and conservation messaging is an area where both zoos struggle, albeit in different ways.
At Zoo Boise, conservation is heavily emphasized as part of the institution’s branding and identity. Yet the actual delivery of educational content is weak. With the exception of the Gorongosa exhibit, signage is often limited to species’ common names, offering little context or interpretation. The result is a disconnect between rhetoric and reality: conservation is loudly proclaimed but thinly communicated.
At the Idaho Falls Zoo, signage is more robust and recently updated. Species information is clear, but interpretation tends to be animal-specific rather than ecosystem- or theme-based. As a result, exhibits fail to tell broader stories. Guests are presented with facts, but not narratives, and observation suggests that most visitors spend little time engaging with signs.
In both institutions, educational materials represent a missed opportunity to deepen visitor understanding and investment in conservation.
Identities in Contrast
Despite their similarities, each zoo has developed its own institutional character.
Zoo Boise positions itself as a conservation-oriented city zoo, presenting animals from around the globe and emphasizing its role in international conservation efforts. Yet the execution is inconsistent, with unimaginative exhibit design and weak interpretive content undermining its stated mission.
The Idaho Falls Zoo functions more clearly as a children’s zoo. Its scale, design, and interpretive strategies are aimed at introducing young audiences to the diversity of the animal kingdom. While it succeeds in being approachable, it fails to establish itself as a destination attraction, despite the tourist potential of its location.
Conclusion:
Together, the two institutions complement one another, offering Idahoans access to a surprisingly wide range of species and experiences.
Idaho’s two AZA zoos occupy a modest but important niche within the state’s cultural and educational landscape. Each provides opportunities for local families to encounter wildlife, each contributes to conservation programs, and each enriches its city. Yet both are held back by the limitations of municipal ownership, lack of state support, and the absence of a unified statewide zoological vision.
Zoo Boise has made strides in updating its facilities, but without imaginative design or strong interpretation, its investments feel more utilitarian than transformative. The Idaho Falls Zoo has curated an admirably diverse collection, but remains modest in scale and fails to capture the tourist potential of its location.
On the national stage, both institutions are overshadowed by larger, more innovative zoos. But within Idaho, they remain valuable institutions with untapped potential. A coordinated, state-supported approach could elevate them from local amenities to true regional leaders. Until then, Zoo Boise and the Idaho Falls Zoo at Tautphaus Park will remain what they are: small city zoos, admirable in their efforts, but limited in their impact.
Last edited:
