What makes a major zoo?

[BirdWorld#33]

The Brookfield Zoo's African wild dog enclosure was perhaps the worst I've ever seen. Why do you think it is better?

I will say I'm surprised you consider the penguin exhibits equal. I personally found the Brookfield Zoo's penguin exhibit to be more engaging and generally better than the Lincoln Park Zoo's. But, of course, in a decade or so, that could all change. As with everything else that has been happening recently or will be happening soon at the Brookfield Zoo, the plans to move the penguins and repurpose The Living Seas will probably only only plunge the institution further into the fjords of mediocrity.

The Lincoln Park Zoo also shines when it comes to rhinoceroses, reptiles, and birds compared to the Brookfield Zoo. The latter's collection of reptiles and birds is obviously bigger, but the former also has much better exhibits. The various aviaries around the Brookfield Zoo are generally poor (Habitat Africa Forest for example), the flamingos' outdoor space is just sad, as are the macaw perches, and other than the Swamp, the main buildings with birds are all outdated and boring. All of the Lincoln Park Zoo's bird exhibits, on the other hand, are consistently either average or better than average. The Lincoln Park Zoo also generally displays their reptiles in larger enclosures, which I find more important than the collection size, especially if there isn't much that's particularly noteworthy.

What birds does Lincoln Park Zoo have in the collection? The exhibits are poorly planted and under stocked.

 

[BirdWorld#33]

Not abc species, a complete collection of species. Like how Detroit is lacking cats, small mammals, fish and inverts. Their reptile collection is pretty “meh” and their quality of habitats is pretty low. Maybe just 3 habitats are impressive. African Forest, Wolf Woods and the Swamp. If I feel nice, I might add Australia but I’d say it’s rather boring.

What is a complete question mean? Provide an example of a complete collection.

 

[BirdWorld#33]

Their collection is missing a big crocodilian, among many other things for herps. They have little to no amphibians and each species can be found at the next zoo, I don’t understand how common species can make a superior herp collection. As for the other post, both exhibits for big cats are bad. I just stated how I could understand the argument going for Brookfield. But the question is, have you visited Brookfield before?

The days of rare species are slowing fading away. They are rare because no one can breed them or it is a very small population. A zoo should not be defined by rare species it should be defined how they are being exhibit.

 

[BirdWorld#33]

lol, when I visited Brookfield last summer, it was alright. Many dated habitats, none mind blowing except for maybe the African Forest and Australia. All of the herp exhibits in Feathers and Scales are small and a mess to find. The only reason I visited that building was to say “I completed Brookfield” and to see the roadrunner. As for Birds and Reptiles, that was even worse. It reminded me of the aquatic side of PC&A at Cleveland. Nothing notable and the best part was the tropical aviary.

How is this a false statement? It’s a matter of opinions! But, at least Lincoln Park had actual good planted and furnished habitats with some rarities. I much prefer their collection over 2 dated buildings that should be refurbished soon as possible.

I have never heard anyone say Lincoln Park Zoo has well planted exhibits. Also, what is rarities mean do they have a dodo bird or t-Rex? Usually, rarities mean two individual left in captivity. I bet the last passenger pigeon was awesome. Rare means the zoo community failed and that should not be a characteristic that distinguishes a zoo.

 

[BirdWorld#33]

It's twice as large and has far more vesicle terrain with the large boulders and accessible multi-leveled moat. Yes the pavers are an unfortunate sightline, but for the animals themselves it's superior.

Brookfield's exhibit is definitely more engaging with the free-flight seabirds and coastal thematics, but Lincoln Park's exhibit has enough going for it (outdoors, underwater viewing) to where I can understand why one could prefer it.

Huh? I don't understand what you're getting at here. There's nothing about the zoo's future plans or recent developments that has or will "plunge them further into the fjords of mediocrity." On the contrary, every future project will better the zoo one way or another. In the case of the penguins/seabirds in particular, the future exhibit will quite literally be a larger outdoor version of the current set-up. In what way does that leave the zoo worse off?

Honestly I've always thought Lincoln Park's rhino complex was rather small for my liking. Brookfield's one rhino yard currently in use is larger than all three of Lincoln Park's combined.

Disagree: The swamp aviary, South American rainforest aviary, free-flight aviary in Reptiles and Birds, the kopje free-flight room, Sonoran desert aviary, and North American prairie aviary all range from good to great imo. There's also the aforementioned seabird room and the condor flight-cage which are similarly well done. In addition, and I'm not sure if you're under a different impression, but the flamingos have access to the entire formal pool which is an acre in size. Nothing sad about it. The indoor space isn't exactly huge, but it's not all that different from most indoor flamingo holding -- most zoos just don't have it publicly viewable. I agree the macaws deserve better though.

agree, have you seen flamingo swim or dive or jump into a pool. I have pictures of all three at Brookfield Zoo. It is not a common behavior because flamingo pool are designed to shallow and to flat.

 

[birdsandbats]

I have never heard anyone say Lincoln Park Zoo has well planted exhibits. Also, what is rarities mean do they have a dodo bird or t-Rex? Usually, rarities mean two individual left in captivity. I bet the last passenger pigeon was awesome. Rare means the zoo community failed and that should not be a characteristic that distinguishes a zoo.

"Rarities" just refers to an animal kept by few zoos. No, it is not "usually" (or ever) used to mean just two individuals left in captivity.

 

[birdsandbats]

While rarities are occasionally rare due to failed programs, this is not always the case. Oftentimes, they are quite common species in the wild that few zoos have bothered to get into. In many other occasions, they are rare in zoos but not in captivity, since there are often many more individuals in private hands.

 

[BirdWorld#33]

I don't know how that is the conclusion you reach but it is inaccurate.


Nearly every single big cat enclosure I have seen is better than the grottos the Brookfield Zoo has.

Feathers and Scales exists completely contrary to what I believe the modern zoo should represent. The birds are literally behind bars and all of the aviaries aside one are grossly small. The one acceptable aviary, which is admittedly very large, was very awkward to observe. Nearly every single one of the terrariums in the building were too small as well.

Behind bars? Do you prefer behind glass? I believe majority house passerines, so how much space do they need? Also, the large aviary is great most of the birds are flying in and out of the exhibit, plus they are regularly breeding cock-of-the-rocks which many facilities have not done lately.

I didn't find that the pygmy hippopotamus, tapir, giraffe, wild dog, and pinniped enclosures were too small or anything serious like that, but they were hideous. The enclosures in the Australia House were also generally unattractive, but they weren't terrible otherwise.

While the studies do suggest that the stimulation in the environment dolphins are given is more important than the size of the environment itself, that should not be used as an excuse for the fact that the pools at the Brookfield Zoo are too small, as I've sadly seen many people on Zoochat suggest. I applaud the initiative to update the existing pools so that the dolphins might be more stimulated, don't get me wrong, but it just isn't enough of an improvement.

The rhinoceros, duiker, pangolin, and okapi enclosures were too small. It is sort of surprising that people ignore how small the pangolin enclosure is just because they are the zoo's stars on Zoochat.

Aside from the spaces the gorillas and orangutans are afforded, the biggest problem with Tropic World is that it is understocked. Also, fairly simple modifications could be made so that the ground area in the three rooms would be a suitable home for more terrestrial animals, but that hasn't happened.

I've also seen a lot of people on Zoochat argue that the Brookfield Zoo can be given a pass on all of its glaring problems because they have plans to correct them. Until the changes are actually made, those problems still exist, and should be addressed here like they exist and not just addressed like they won't exist in the future.


Having a comprehensive collection is only a small factor in what makes a great zoo.

 

[BirdWorld#33]

"Rarities" just refers to an animal kept by few zoos. No, it is not "usually" (or ever) used to mean just two individuals left in captivity.

I get it. You find enjoyment in small populations in small numbers enjoyable and exciting. The smaller the population and less sustainable is what you are looking for. Why should zoos breed anything.

 

[BirdWorld#33]

While rarities are occasionally rare due to failed programs, this is not always the case. Oftentimes, they are quite common species in the wild that few zoos have bothered to get into. In many other occasions, they are rare in zoos but not in captivity, since there are often many more individuals in private hands.

That does not make sense. What population is common and have stayed consistently common without zoos?

 

[birdsandbats]

That does not make sense. What population is common and have stayed consistently common without zoos?

Many species of birds, herps and fish have been and remain common in private hands. This type of thing is common.

I get it. You find enjoyment in small populations in small numbers enjoyable and exciting. The smaller the population and less sustainable is what you are looking for. Why should zoos breed anything.

I'm not looking for less sustainable populations. In fact, I love it when species have sustainable captive populations. But it undeniably exciting to see a species that isn't seen in zoos very often. But once again, many zoo rarities do have sustainable captive populations. And even many that don't are very common in the wild and therefore have no need for ex-situ zoo populations.

 

[BirdWorld#33]

While rarities are occasionally rare due to failed programs, this is not always the case. Oftentimes, they are quite common species in the wild that few zoos have bothered to get into. In many other occasions, they are rare in zoos but not in captivity, since there are often many more individuals in private hands.

I also forget to mention there is laws to take many animals from the wild legally so they might be common in the wild but if the population is small in captivity they are more than likely not sustainable. . The idea rarities are great is an odd thing for people to look for in a zoo.

 

[Don Majeski]

I get it. You find enjoyment in small populations in small numbers enjoyable and exciting. The smaller the population and less sustainable is what you are looking for. Why should zoos breed
Their should be to breed them OUT of endangerment

 

[BirdWorld#33]

Many species of birds, herps and fish have been and remain common in private hands. This type of thing is common.

I'm not looking for less sustainable populations. In fact, I love it when species have sustainable captive populations. But it undeniably exciting to see a species that isn't seen in zoos very often. But once again, many zoo rarities do have sustainable captive populations. And even many that don't are very common in the wild and therefore have no need for ex-situ zoo populations.

Its genetics some number means at some point inbreeding will occur. Also, rare means uncommon or not a lot of. It does not matter if it is common in the wild if laws prevent bringing in new individuals from the wild to boost genetics they are not sustainable in zoos.

 

[birdsandbats]

Its genetics some number means at some point inbreeding will occur. Also, rare means uncommon or not a lot of. It does not matter if it is common in the wild if laws prevent bringing in new individuals from the wild to boost genetics they are not sustainable in zoos.

Not all species in zoos are bred.

 

[BirdWorld#33]

Agreed, but if you breed to many they are not rare enough which seems to be a characteristic necessary of a zoo and aquarium to be a great zoos. If you do not then you are just a ok zoo.

 

[BirdWorld#33]

Not all species in zoos are bred.

You are right because they are easily obtained from rehab facilities or the population only have on sex. What species that is rare in zoos or aquariums have they are not breed on purpose? None, unless the population consist of only one sex.

 

[pachyderm pro]

The Dunning-Kruger effect ladies and gentlemen.

 

[USZOOfan42]

You are right because they are easily obtained from rehab facilities or the population only have on sex. What species that is rare in zoos or aquariums have they are not breed on purpose? None, unless the population consist of only one sex.

A great example of this is a species like a manatee. The population consists of rescues that will be sent to the wild or continue to stay in captivity. But, they are not bred in captivity.

Also, another good rarity example is something like a Tasmanian Devil. 3 facilities hold them, and there’s 10 individuals in the US. They also have a declining population in both the wild and in captivity.

 

[birdsandbats]

What species that is rare in zoos or aquariums have they are not breed on purpose? None, unless the population consist of only one sex.

Tons of things rare in zoos and aquariums are not bred. You already named one common example of this - animals obtained from rehab. Another common example is animals more common in private hands, which I've already explained to you multiple times. There are plenty of other examples too, these are just the most obvious ones.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about but are desperately pretending you do. Why this thread is attracting so many trolls I do not know.