What zoo do you think is near perfect? Or close enough?
- Thread starter J-K
- Start date
imaginarius
Well-Known Member
No zoo is near-perfect; animal husbandry techniques are continuously improving, and every zoo, even the best ones, have weak areas that need to be improved in some way. But in terms of conservation work in the field, which some zoos definitely do a better job of than others, San Diego, Omaha, Bronx, St. Louis, Columbus, Washington, and Brookfield are all very good. I haven’t visited many zoos in other countries, so I cannot speak for those.
Shedd Aquarium is perfect.
Shedd aquarium is pretty groovy, I enjoyed every second of it. 
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
None.
All (as any institution is) are subject to human or systemic / organizational errors and flaws or different subjective preferences, right ?
When I think of a zoo that I rate highly such as Jersey Zoo in the UK even it has certain things that I don't like.
For example, meerkats and Asian short clawed otters and the lack of a few species which I believe would benefit from being there.
All (as any institution is) are subject to human or systemic / organizational errors and flaws or different subjective preferences, right ?
When I think of a zoo that I rate highly such as Jersey Zoo in the UK even it has certain things that I don't like.
For example, meerkats and Asian short clawed otters and the lack of a few species which I believe would benefit from being there.
Last edited:
I agree that no zoo is even near-perfect, but if we're talking zoos that come even close in terms of collection, exhibition, scenery, conservation efforts, visitor experience/amenities, etc. I'm going to be a broken record and vouch for the Highland Wildlife Park in Scotland.
Maybe there's some childhood/nostalgia-bias filtering in, but when I was a kid the park was completely different than it is now. Of course that also might factor in some personal attachment towards it having basically 'grown up with it', but anyways:
It's a little bit boxed in by having a set 'theme', but it works to the zoo's advantage given it's climate, and they have a fairly diverse collection (of mammals anyways). They have a good number of carnivores that includes the big names like tigers and polar-bears and a couple of smaller ones and conservation cases like the Scottish wildcat and Amur leopard (offshow for conservation purposes, though I take that as a point in their favour), and a pretty large selection of hoofstock as well. They even managed to fit in one species of primate (Japanese macaque).
The enclosures range from good to excellent, with nearly all of them just being fenced off pieces of land and woodland, but in such a habitat that it really works in the exhibit's favour. The main reserve, polar bear, macaque, and wolverine exhibits are amazing amounts of space given the number of animals they hold. Special mention has to go to the snow leopard exhibit as well, built on nearly a sheer cliffside, with the neighbouring bharal given monthly short access to it so the leopards can follow their scents when they get let back out.
The backdrop and scenery I've kind of alluded to, but it's set right in the middle of the Scottish highlands, and the views from some areas of the park are just as marketable as the animals. You can see the surrounding hills as a backdrop in almost every exhibit.
If I were to minorly criticize though, the park does have a couple of things working to its disadvantage. For one thing, their location is super remote and not really convenient for a daily visit or anything unless you live locally, and the location also means that no matter what time of year you visit you'd better be prepared for the cold. There's also the fact that the cold climate kind of boxes them in a little on the kinds of animals they can show, at the time of writing (with the recent absence of the snowy owls) they only have 3 bird species on exhibit and no reptiles/amphibians/insects/fish/etc. There's one or two empty spots where an exhibit could go but nowhere near the level that Edinburgh has, and I wish they would bring back some of the 'native' species they used to exhibit (fox, badger, eagle, otter, etc.) just to give it bit more of a local feel.
In terms of visitor amenities there's honestly not a whole lot they can do beyond what they have. One cafe and gift shop is enough to satisfy the kind of numbers the park usually expects. It's gotten better in this aspect over the years but it's still not super disability-access-friendly and 90% of the exhibits are up and down a pretty steep set of little hills.
So yeah, I don't think you could necessarily stack it up against the likes of San Diego and Bronx and the other 'big ones' necessarily, but for what it is I think it's pretty high up there(...pun unintentional).
Maybe there's some childhood/nostalgia-bias filtering in, but when I was a kid the park was completely different than it is now. Of course that also might factor in some personal attachment towards it having basically 'grown up with it', but anyways:
It's a little bit boxed in by having a set 'theme', but it works to the zoo's advantage given it's climate, and they have a fairly diverse collection (of mammals anyways). They have a good number of carnivores that includes the big names like tigers and polar-bears and a couple of smaller ones and conservation cases like the Scottish wildcat and Amur leopard (offshow for conservation purposes, though I take that as a point in their favour), and a pretty large selection of hoofstock as well. They even managed to fit in one species of primate (Japanese macaque).
The enclosures range from good to excellent, with nearly all of them just being fenced off pieces of land and woodland, but in such a habitat that it really works in the exhibit's favour. The main reserve, polar bear, macaque, and wolverine exhibits are amazing amounts of space given the number of animals they hold. Special mention has to go to the snow leopard exhibit as well, built on nearly a sheer cliffside, with the neighbouring bharal given monthly short access to it so the leopards can follow their scents when they get let back out.
The backdrop and scenery I've kind of alluded to, but it's set right in the middle of the Scottish highlands, and the views from some areas of the park are just as marketable as the animals. You can see the surrounding hills as a backdrop in almost every exhibit.
If I were to minorly criticize though, the park does have a couple of things working to its disadvantage. For one thing, their location is super remote and not really convenient for a daily visit or anything unless you live locally, and the location also means that no matter what time of year you visit you'd better be prepared for the cold. There's also the fact that the cold climate kind of boxes them in a little on the kinds of animals they can show, at the time of writing (with the recent absence of the snowy owls) they only have 3 bird species on exhibit and no reptiles/amphibians/insects/fish/etc. There's one or two empty spots where an exhibit could go but nowhere near the level that Edinburgh has, and I wish they would bring back some of the 'native' species they used to exhibit (fox, badger, eagle, otter, etc.) just to give it bit more of a local feel.
In terms of visitor amenities there's honestly not a whole lot they can do beyond what they have. One cafe and gift shop is enough to satisfy the kind of numbers the park usually expects. It's gotten better in this aspect over the years but it's still not super disability-access-friendly and 90% of the exhibits are up and down a pretty steep set of little hills.
So yeah, I don't think you could necessarily stack it up against the likes of San Diego and Bronx and the other 'big ones' necessarily, but for what it is I think it's pretty high up there(...pun unintentional).
Wildwood Zoo has no bad exhibits, so it could be described as perfect.
Well I am a humongous fan of the Omaha zoo, (my number 1 place to go in the entire world), I do think some enclosures could be better. Its near-perfect, but some of the exhibits in the desert dome are a tad to small for my taste. But I do agree, but mostly because of childhood bias.
imaginarius
Well-Known Member
Shedd is definitely my favorite US aquarium, followed closely by Monterey Bay. I do wish they had a “marquee” species though, like the whale sharks, manta rays, great hammerheads, and tiger sharks at the Georgia Aquarium. Shedd’s layout is so much better, and their marine biology/conservation work is absolutely top-notch. But they’re less “exciting” to your average attendee because they don’t have a 6 million gallon tank with something huge in it. I do wonder if any other American aquariums will ever get whale sharks.
I find it more interesting due to the lack of large exhibits for famous ABC animals. I like the smaller tanks with lesser known species. I also really enjoy those temporary exhibits, with the amphibian one having a better amphibian collection than most zoos, and underwater beauty (from the looks of it, never been to shedd for 4 years) looks like it has some interesting species.
Hmmm, this is a tough one. I'd say Detroit is near perfect exhibit-wise (perhaps not really the best word as there are some average exhibits, but no real bad ones) but their collection is lackluster in some areas. Living Desert has amazing scenery and exhibits that compliment it pretty perfectly imo. I think San Diego Safari Park is quite close to perfect at what it tries to accomplish although there are obviously some gaps (pretty much no herps).
As an overall combination though, I'd have to say Bronx; mostly great exhibits, a tremendous collection, very nice grounds and some of the best conservation work of any zoo.
Regarding Shedd, I don't think it's perfect or even near perfect, although it's undoubtedly a very nice aquarium.
As an overall combination though, I'd have to say Bronx; mostly great exhibits, a tremendous collection, very nice grounds and some of the best conservation work of any zoo.
Regarding Shedd, I don't think it's perfect or even near perfect, although it's undoubtedly a very nice aquarium.
I enjoyed my visit to Plzen Zoo, although I accept that several enclosures are too cramped for the animals. Plzen has a lot of XYZ species, some of which may be found in no other zoos, but also has ABC animals for those people uninterested in obscurities. It is a good place for Zoochatters and non-Zoochatters
Really?!
What exhibits need improvement? There are very few that I have much issue with.
In my experience I’d say Bronx, Northwest Trek, Dallas, and San Antonio in the United States.
1. Objectively do they feel like “a day at the zoo?” Bronx certainly. Dallas can be hectic. San Antonio blazing hot, and I guess you could get a bad seat on Northwest Trek’s tram or not fully understand the nature of the facility.
2. Do they nail their mission? Yep. The Bronx for conservation heritage, Dallas for exhibitory, Northwest Trek for collection, San Antonio for matching so thoroughly the elan of it’s city.
3. Razzmatazz or substance. None of them are flashy (maybe Northwest Trek cut it close with their playground, Dallas potentially and the Bronx certainly have slipped beyond their recent Golden Ages...but that might be cyclical or even nostalgia talking, San Antonio...aside from losing its early focus on hoofstock...roars back with improved exhibits, dedication to it’s bird collection, and just being such an essential part in the complimentary San Antonio experience). That last bit about San Antonio is important. Outside of Central Park and maybe Antwerp or Frankfurt, I don’t think another zoo feels “of” it’s city so well. San Diego and Omaha are destinations because of their zoos. San Antonio is a destination...with a wonderful zoo.
My list. With San Antonio as the standout.
1. Objectively do they feel like “a day at the zoo?” Bronx certainly. Dallas can be hectic. San Antonio blazing hot, and I guess you could get a bad seat on Northwest Trek’s tram or not fully understand the nature of the facility.
2. Do they nail their mission? Yep. The Bronx for conservation heritage, Dallas for exhibitory, Northwest Trek for collection, San Antonio for matching so thoroughly the elan of it’s city.
3. Razzmatazz or substance. None of them are flashy (maybe Northwest Trek cut it close with their playground, Dallas potentially and the Bronx certainly have slipped beyond their recent Golden Ages...but that might be cyclical or even nostalgia talking, San Antonio...aside from losing its early focus on hoofstock...roars back with improved exhibits, dedication to it’s bird collection, and just being such an essential part in the complimentary San Antonio experience). That last bit about San Antonio is important. Outside of Central Park and maybe Antwerp or Frankfurt, I don’t think another zoo feels “of” it’s city so well. San Diego and Omaha are destinations because of their zoos. San Antonio is a destination...with a wonderful zoo.
My list. With San Antonio as the standout.
I have not visited, so I have to be careful off-course, but from all zoochat impressions there are three areas with very significant welfare problems:
1) Madagascar with its all-indoors lemur glass boxes (and possibly the world's ugliest baobab)
2) Desert Dome with many enclosures that are mostly small or too small and many lacking natural substrates (Meerkats on fake rocks.....)
3) Lied Jungle, especially for the large mammals it is just unacceptable and based on the pictures it doesn't come close to the jungle feeling of Burgers' Bush, Gondwanaland or Masoala.
Even some of the new highly praised enclosures like the snowleopard one would be only average on this side of the continent....
Looking at zoos on this side of the pond, there is a large number of zoos without any such obvious weaknesses like Doué, Chester, Burgers' Zoo, Tierpark Bern, Apenheul, Vallée des Singes, Wildnispark Langenberg, Kristiansand, Nordens Ark, Nürnberg and others.
I have (also behind the scenes), and I can confirm your points of critique, including parts of the World of Darkness. And what is it with you and the term "of course"?have not visited, so I have to be careful of course
In general, there seems to be a cultural difference in judging the size and aptness of an exhibit when it comes to Americans and some Europeans. Some of the American zoo exhibits, in particular in regard to reptiles, would be totally unacceptable and even illegal in several European countries. Hence, it does not surprise me that the zoos listed as counterexamples by lintworm are all from (Northern / Western) Europe.
I doubt that there is something like a truly perfect zoo, as zoos are in constant flux due the changing influences of cultural zeitgeist, knowledge, technology etc. and the complexity and diversity of what makes a zoo "perfect" (which might not often be apparent, like how the zoo treats its staff, how "green" it is etc.) Furthermore, there's always the individual bias: a fan of venomous and poisonous critters like yours, truly,
might appreciate a well-run petting zoo, but I would probably never rank it as perfect, as it showcases none of the species I'm most interested in. On the other hand, an elephant fan would consider my little WdG as imperfect, since I don't and will never keep elephants. At the moment, and IMHO, there are zoos and aquaria like Arnheim, Vienna, Shedd etc. that are scoring highly in many fields. But I doubt that any of them ever was, ever is and ever will be perfect.
This is dangerous thinking. As soon as you think you are perfect you stop improving. Zoos always need to be restlessly aiming for better and better conditions fueled by increased knowledge of the species, and its requirements, and to better the quality of the display for the visiting public.
I’m not sure that anyone is taking it that seriously. At least I hope not. I think folks are just having fun with the idea as a small twist on another way to evaluate, rank, discuss and defend their favorite zoos.