Top 5 Zoos in the USA

[ThylacineAlive]

So again you say our analysis is biased, designed in San Diego's favor. Again I say, do NOT accuse me of being insulting, when you continue this insult. Our analysis was unbiased. Period.

This is going to be my last post on this subject as this is clearly getting out of hand and I am tired of going in circles. You are the one insisting others are wrong for thinking Bronx (or any zoo) is better than SDZ. You have called me (and others) desperate multiple times and accused us of being unable to accept what you consider to be the truth . You came to these results based on a statistical analysis that you invented, using criteria that is most important to you. Any survey based off of subjective data is, by nature, bias. It is nearly impossible to have a truly unbiased survey as the surveyor is a person and people have agendas and pre-existing opinions. That was the first thing I learned in my statistics class. Again, I will never try to act as though I understand statistics anywhere near as well as you do but I will repeat my ending comment from last night: you are trying to obtain the objective from the subjective. The analysis cannot be unbiased because it is based entirely on the subjective opinions of the extremely small sample size (n=3). Since the input is subjective the output cannot be objective using a sample size this small, and as such the results of the analysis are bias- and that is OK. It is representative of the opinions of those who took part in the analysis and as such it's perfectly fine for it to be bias. The issue I and many others have is that you are pushing the results down our throats and insisting that we need to either accept them as fact, or we're fanboys despite to prove an inferior zoo is better than the true Best Zoo. You ARE the one being insulting; ie you are calling us derogatory things because we don't agree with you.

I'm a bit stunned that you have no understanding of Bonus animals. Why do you think zoos pay a million dollars per year to have giant pandas? Why are Toronto and Calgary paying big money to host pandas for 5 years? Why do a few zoos each summer rent a couple koalas from San Diego, spending a lot of money to build a temporary koala habitat? (My zoo here in Indianapolis has had the koalas here twice in the summer.) In case anyone is interested, the animals I consider "Bonus animals" are in tiers, with Tier 1 being the ultimate zoo superstar, giant pandas. Tier 2 would be koalas, dolphins, manatees, and gorillas. Tier 3 would include a much wider variety including walruses, kiwis, hummingbirds, chimpanzees/bonobos, orangutans, gibbons, spider monkeys, colobus monkeys, okapis, Komodo dragons, tapirs, sea otters, giant otters, coatis, naked mole rats, giant anteaters/tamanduas, red pandas, beavers, nutrias, mooses, Cape buffalo, African wild dogs, hyenas, snow leopards, cheetahs, white tigers, white lions, mandrills, and Tasmanian devils. Any of the above animals draw extra viewers to their exhibit with extra excitement at seeing this "unusual animal". Sometimes it's because the animal is just extra fun to watch (nutrias, etc.)

Bonus animals= Any animal you find to be extremely popular with the general public, extremely charismatic, or just interesting to you... Yeah, sorry I was so confused on this.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post not because I'm ignoring it, but because @Zoo Tycooner FR has done a good enough job of summing up my exact thoughts.

~Thylo

 

[mweb08]

Of course exhibit quality comes into play as well as you mention. Some of those exhibits you mention are bad, although the rhino exhibit is spacious and I don't think some of the other exhibits are as bad you do. I also think the polar bear exhibit is the best bear exhibit between the two zoos.

But again, this is a fair issue to bring up. I brought it up a long time ago when I asked if a zoo should get bonus points so to speak or negative points for exhibiting a popular species in a poor habitat.

To me, it largely depends on how bad that exhibit is. The aye-aye is an example at the San Diego Zoo where I think they'd be better off without having it based on its cage. The examples you bring up are still net positives to me, though. I certainly look forward to when they upgrade the area featuring the old grottoes.

 

[mweb08]

In regards to repetitive animals / exhibits, I do think that's an issue at both zoos. Certainly not with gorillas and bonobos though. Those exhibits can easily be seen with plenty in between them, but they're also such star animals (and entertaining ones at that) and are different enough where I think that would be a pretty rare complaint.

Any reptile house suffers from this imo or a row of bird cages, or a bird house. Rodent houses too. Those are among the most blatant offenders to me.

So I do think WOB suffers from this.

I think San Diego suffers from this with birds in some areas of the zoo, but they do a better job of mixing birds in throughout the zoo. They also do a better job of mixing reptiles in around the zoo imo, and the Reptile Walk area is less repetitive than the reptile house and features some stellar exhibits.

I don't think Monkey Trails really suffers from this either because monkeys are generally quite entertaining, and there are other species mixed in. You can also choose to view parts of the exhibit at either the ground level or canopy level and then do the other level later on.

The old hoofstock mesa that EO replaced certainly suffered from that issue in my view.

 

[jayjds2]

"Bonus animals" are in tiers, with Tier 1 being the ultimate zoo superstar, giant pandas. Tier 2 would be koalas, dolphins, manatees, and gorillas. Tier 3 would include a much wider variety including walruses, kiwis, hummingbirds, chimpanzees/bonobos, orangutans, gibbons, spider monkeys, colobus monkeys, okapis, Komodo dragons, tapirs, sea otters, giant otters, coatis, naked mole rats, giant anteaters/tamanduas, red pandas, beavers, nutrias, mooses, Cape buffalo, African wild dogs, hyenas, snow leopards, cheetahs, white tigers, white lions, mandrills, and Tasmanian devils.

Really? White tigers and lions, perhaps some of the unhealthiest-by-nature animals that some zoos choose to display, and you’re rewarding them for it?! Not to mention gibbons, various monkeys, and other animals the average visitor has never heard of. Even nutria makes the list, but not a normal lion or tiger?

So I do think WOB suffers from this.

I think San Diego suffers from this with birds in some areas of the zoo, but they do a better job of mixing birds in throughout the zoo. They also do a better job of mixing reptiles in around the zoo imo, and the Reptile Walk area is less repetitive than the reptile house and features some stellar exhibits.

Outside of the big walkthroughs, I saw next to no visitors appreciating SDZ’s numerous aviaries on my recent visits. Instead, I heard comments about “just more birds” when reaching a new exhibit (even far from other aviaries) and I saw many visitors skip all reptile exhibits apart from crocodilians and the reptile house/walk. Bronx does an amazing job captivating visitors for the entirety of World of Birds, and visitors know if it’s birds they want to see, they go there. They don’t complain when birds are seen elsewhere, because they are tastefully incorporated into exhibits like JungleWorld and CGF, not put in another row of dark metal cages.

 

[mweb08]

Really? White tigers and lions, perhaps some of the unhealthiest-by-nature animals that some zoos choose to display, and you’re rewarding them for it?! Not to mention gibbons, various monkeys, and other animals the average visitor has never heard of. Even nutria makes the list, but not a normal lion or tiger?

Outside of the big walkthroughs, I saw next to no visitors appreciating SDZ’s numerous aviaries on my recent visits. Instead, I heard comments about “just more birds” when reaching a new exhibit (even far from other aviaries) and I saw many visitors skip all reptile exhibits apart from crocodilians and the reptile house/walk. Bronx does an amazing job captivating visitors for the entirety of World of Birds, and visitors know if it’s birds they want to see, they go there. They don’t complain when birds are seen elsewhere, because they are tastefully incorporated into exhibits like JungleWorld and CGF, not put in another row of dark metal cages.

That's far from my experience during my dozens of visits to San Diego.

 

[ANyhuis]

Overnight I thought about all of this and the controversy it has stirred up. Perhaps I used the wrong term, "statistical analysis", in describing our fun comparison of the Top 5 US zoos. Maybe a better term would be "statistical evaluation" -- an evaluation conducted by 3 very experienced, very knowledgeable evaluators of zoos. Of these 3, one has been to more than 400 zoos, another to over 330 zoos worldwide (on 4 continents), and the last to over 100 zoos. All 3 of us have paid careful attention to what thousands of zoo visitors we have observed want to see and enjoy. I have opened up this evaluation, inviting anyone out there to be a part of it, but no one has accepted my invitation. That is probably because the key requirement is that you have to have been to all 5 of these Top zoos, and since no one out there seems to fit this requirement, it appears the three of us are uniquely qualified to make this evaluation.

Since this is an evaluation, not an "analysis", the sample size problem some of you worry about is not such a big deal. I will even back off a bit on insisting that our evaluation was objective. I've never claimed it was totally objective, only "objective enough for us", but perhaps what I was really meaning to say is that our evaluation was unbiased. Despite Thylo's continual insults, the evaluation was 100% unbiased in that we had NO final goals in mind of what we wanted our results to say. As I've repeatedly said, one of the 3 of us actually believed the opposite of the final results going into the study, and the results really surprised all of us. The real bias, in my humble opinion, is in many (but not all) of you criticizing this evaluation. I wonder if you would be so bothered by it if our results said that Bronx is, by far, the best zoo! I'm guessing that Thylo would be a big supporter of our study if that were so.

As for our 28 categories (which have been criticized much here), our original idea was to compare the zoos, exhibit-by-exhibit. But the obvious problem with that is the different zoos don't all have the same or comparable exhibits. So the alternative idea was to dissect the zoos into the many different "areas" of animal exhibits (both geographical and taxonomical), plus add a few of the "extras" (rides, entertainment, restaurants) which enhance the visitor experience in a zoo. And NO, we gave no thought to which categories would help or hurt any of the zoos in our comparison.

I've struggled with whether to tell the following story, and I may regret it, but here goes. I've wondered why it's only the Bronx Zoo supporters (and not Omaha, St.Louis, or Columbus fans) who are upset by our results. From my experience, it's not just ZooChat folks who feel this way. In my years as a travel guidebook author (of 2 books), most of the times I've visited American zoos, I've done so with the prearranged cooperation of the Public Relations department at the zoo I'm visiting. I remember the first time I did so at the Bronx Zoo, way back in 1994. I told the young PR lady, "I'm so excited to be here as I've long heard you have one of the best zoos in the nation, if not the world!" To this, her mood turned ultra-serious and she bluntly said, "We are not one of the best, we ARE the best!" I looked at her face to see if she was joking at all, but no, she was 100% serious! This is why I hesitated to even let SnowLeopard bring up our evaluation on this board. I can imagine, if they are reading this thread, I've probably burned my bridges with the Bronx Zoo folks. While I've said NOTHING bad about the Bronx Zoo, just saying, "You are not #1" is a sour insult to them!

I still think elephants, giraffes and others do not really deserve to be different categories, as you've presented on this post; having them as big animals seems good enough (a zoo that has giraffes but no elephants can still be pretty popular to visitors).

I now think that Elephants are the most important zoo animal. With all of the recent bogus attacks made by PETA, IDA, and Hancocks, we should give any zoo standing up against these attacks some credit for courage. But look at all of the sprawling, huge elephant exhibits that have been built in USA zoos (and in Europe) over the past few years. This is why we believed that Elephants deserve their own category. Sure, there are some good zoos without elephants, but zoos deserve additional points for having elephants, and even more points for have a great, large elephant exhibit.

Really? White tigers and lions, perhaps some of the unhealthiest-by-nature animals that some zoos choose to display, and you’re rewarding them for it?!

I was inwardly doing a "Tick, tick, tick", timing how long it would take for someone to give me a politically correct bashing for this. Like it or not, white lions and white tigers are real crowd pleasers -- worldwide! At any zoo that has them, look at the stuffed animals for sale in the gift shop and you'll see adorable stuffed white tigers, and you'll see a lot of visitors buying them. I still have a white tiger keychain from the Rio Grande Zoo that I bought there when I first visited them in 1994. They were promoting their white tigers big-time back then, and they were the most popular animals in the zoo! So yes, I give Bonus Animal points for these animals.

Let me just add one more thing, for those in particular who just don't like the whole idea of ranking zoos. I know my friend Sooty Mangabey feels this way, as he calls the idea "parlour games". For years, I've completely agreed, and in fact, after our 2008 book came out, I did many media (mostly radio) interviews, promoting our book. Probably the most common media question I got was, "What is the best zoo?" I would (thinking of the Bronx PR folks) hesitate to answer the question, but would respond, "OK, I'll give you, in no particular order, what I believe are the nation's 5 best zoos." And I would then name off San Diego, Bronx, Omaha, Columbus, and Disney's Animal Kingdom (DAK). Due to a "sort of" 28-category evaluation of the zoos, I've changed my mind slightly and now substituted St.Louis for DAK. But why, as Sooty might ask, do this at all? Here's my reasoning. As an experienced zoo author and evaluator, many folks want my opinion when they travel about which zoo (or zoos) they should consider visiting. In particular, two of my son-in-laws actually changed their travel plans and included a visit to the San Diego Zoo when I told them it's the nation's #1 zoo. (One of these son-in-laws will be going to SDZ on his honeymoon with my daughter next year!) Many of my family members were much more anxious to join a big family gathering at the Columbus Zoo last year, when I told them it is one of the Top 5 zoos in America. I've also put in similar plugs to family and friends for Omaha, St.Louis, Bronx, and other highly-rated zoos. Just knowing that "This is one of the best" makes a difference in people's travel planning. So this, Sooty, is why I am willing to participate in these parlour games.

 

[Coelacanth18]

People are not disagreeing and challenging your evaluation because they can't accept that the Bronx Zoo isn't "the best". They are not homers desperately trying to prove that their zoo is better than San Diego. They are not being irrational and tearing down your argument so as to maintain a sense of self-superiority.

They disagreed with the fact that you called your method "objective" and that you claimed (or seemed to claim) that it was thus a more valid and objective view of how the zoos were actually ranked. And there were legitimate flaws, which they pointed out, and gaps in your logic, which they also pointed out. That you keep labeling and slandering all arguments against you as the irrational dedication of diehard Bronx Zoo fans is not an accurate representation of this thread, and I think you have a responsibility to acknowledge that.

You said that you wondered why fans of other zoos weren't complaining about your evaluation. As it happens, I am a longtime fan and supporter of the Saint Louis Zoo, which I grew up visiting as a kid. As I posted before, I think ranking zoos is pointless, so I'm not going to do that. I will say that I have never been to the Bronx Zoo, while I have been to the San Diego Zoo and I personally prefer Saint Louis over it. So I have no stake in the Bronx Zoo's reputation or standing among other zoos (in addition to others that have disagreed with you); yet, I have a problem both with your claims of objectivity (which you have admittedly done some retracting of, but not entirely) and your put downs. I don't agree with @ThylacineAlive that your evaluation was necessarily biased, but don't act hurt that he would claim this when you're using the same tactic on him.

 

[pachyderm pro]

In all honesty, this thread has become a bit of a mess. Some great debate yes, but there's enough content in this thread to make 5 separate threads about all the topics in discussion. Its all become so jumbled and has become a chore to follow along with. I think we may have strayed off the path of what Thylo originally intended, and I ask of him to please continue with his evaluation of the San Diego zoo, and we can hopefully remain from anymore futile remarks.

 

[Echobeast]

I also wish for the point of the thread to follow its intended path.

 

[jayjds2]

I have opened up this evaluation, inviting anyone out there to be a part of it, but no one has accepted my invitation. That is probably because the key requirement is that you have to have been to all 5 of these Top zoos, and since no one out there seems to fit this requirement, it appears the three of us are uniquely qualified to make this evaluation.

That is not true, as I am also extremely qualified having visited all 5 within the last TWO years as well as having visited over 100 zoos in multiple countries. I have not yet joined or requested to because I have another visit to Saint Louis planned next week and then I will collect my thoughts and do so.

I wonder if you would be so bothered by it if our results said that Bronx is, by far, the best zoo! I'm guessing that Thylo would be a big supporter of our study if that were so.

No, I don’t think he would, and neither would I, or other Bronx advocates. Regardless of outcome, with such a low sample size, there really is no objective or even “somewhat objective” or “kind of objective” or however you want to put it output. It’s simply the thoughts of three people. Two thought SDZ would win, and it did.

This perhaps partially explains why Thylo tells me I am biased, conducting a biased study.

If that were the case and Bronx were truly so far behind as you suggest, then myself and others such as nczoofan would not also be supporting it. There are at least 10 zoos in between myself and Bronx but I still support it. It’s not such a homer thing. His claim is very different than your hypothetical one: for one, he has actually supported it with facts and comparisons to multiple other zoos.

So this, Sooty, is why I am willing to participate in these parlour games -- and endure Thylo's criticism.

I think this is extremely unfair to Thylo, considering you called him desperate in your first post, and have since made worse comments. All he’s done is state that your study is biased, and I and a number of others agree with him in principle, primarily on the grounds of a tiny sample size. I do not know what was going through your head when creating the categories, and don’t accuse you of biasing those themselves towards San Diego. But you are the one who seems to be senselessly lashing out for even the slightest criticism of your “evaluation.” All I have to say is a higher sample size would lead to more subjective points of view, in hope that with more than three people, subjective and objective views correlate when enough of the population is sampled.

I've struggled with whether to tell the following story, and I may regret it, but here goes. I've wondered why it's only the Bronx Zoo supporters (and not Omaha, St.Louis, or Columbus fans) who are upset by our results.

Please read the following quote.

Oh and by the way, no fans of Omaha, St.Louis or Columbus are complaining because they were never brought into this thread (except for said ranking). I can assure you they would try to defend their zoos if something bad was said about them. Another thing is there is no such thing as a "Bronx Zoo supporter" or I have yet to see one. Some people love Bronx so they defend it but it's not a sort of all-in where only Bronx can be the perfect zoo and all the other zoos should be undermined. It's not a perfect dichotomy where you get Bronx Zoo supporters as you call them and San Diego Zoo supporters on two sides.

Just because I believe the Bronx Zoo is America’s best does not mean I believe San Diego isn’t the second best. Had they come into play, I would’ve defended Omaha and Saint Louis just the same, though I can’t say I like Columbus as much as some members of the forum.