which species indicate a great zoo??
- Thread starter gerome
- Start date
None.
How did you come up with that list of species as definers? And why would dolphins be on it?
How did you come up with that list of species as definers? And why would dolphins be on it?
Lafone
Well-Known Member
I'd argue that none is also an appropriate response for the reason that simply having an animal doesn't make anything great in and of itself.
Husbandry, exhibitry, breeding programmes, role in conservation and education all contribute to what makes a great zoo in my view. While I appreciate for some people simply posessing a rarity is enough I'd say it's not the whole story.
Taking this poll literally you could have, say, a cassowary in a shed that was 3 foot wide or a manatee in a small swimming pool and meet the definition of a 'great quality zoo'. That doesn't seem quite right.
Husbandry, exhibitry, breeding programmes, role in conservation and education all contribute to what makes a great zoo in my view. While I appreciate for some people simply posessing a rarity is enough I'd say it's not the whole story.
Taking this poll literally you could have, say, a cassowary in a shed that was 3 foot wide or a manatee in a small swimming pool and meet the definition of a 'great quality zoo'. That doesn't seem quite right.
I'm curious to know how manatees are possibly winning the (meaningless) poll...
filovirus
Well-Known Member
As others have stated I'm curious how you came up with this list. What's the logic? And why no species with "only 2 captive representations"- are one-of-a-kinders and three-of-a-kinders okay?
I agree with the sentiment others have posted- that a rare species does not make a zoo good. It's a far more multifaceted thing, quality of a zoo- and I don't think a zoo needs to excel at every single thing to be great, either.
If I had to answer this question, I'd say that if a zoo has a high-quality, well-signed, thoughtfully-designed exhibit for a boring animal, then it's an indicator to me that a zoo is of high quality. "Boring" is subjective, of course... but I think it can broadly be agreed that a polar bear or dolphin is more exciting to most than a bullfrog or small lizard. If a zoo takes the time and effort to thoughtfully display an animal that many visitors will overlook, that's an indicator to me that it's a facility that understand what a zoo should do: Conserve, protect, educate, and highlight even the most plain, underwhelming, overlookable of animals.
I agree with the sentiment others have posted- that a rare species does not make a zoo good. It's a far more multifaceted thing, quality of a zoo- and I don't think a zoo needs to excel at every single thing to be great, either.
If I had to answer this question, I'd say that if a zoo has a high-quality, well-signed, thoughtfully-designed exhibit for a boring animal, then it's an indicator to me that a zoo is of high quality. "Boring" is subjective, of course... but I think it can broadly be agreed that a polar bear or dolphin is more exciting to most than a bullfrog or small lizard. If a zoo takes the time and effort to thoughtfully display an animal that many visitors will overlook, that's an indicator to me that it's a facility that understand what a zoo should do: Conserve, protect, educate, and highlight even the most plain, underwhelming, overlookable of animals.
Speaking from a US perspective…
Only well-known accredited zoos with a lot of money can get giant pandas. While those zoos won’t necessarily be the absolute best in every aspect, they are guaranteed to meet certain standards for animal welfare and conservation.
I would say this somewhat applies to polar bears as well, seeing as few to no private, non-accredited zoos keep them, and most if not all of the current holders in this country seem well-regarded by the zoo community, even if the quality of their polar bears habitat isn’t anything exceptional.
Manatees were the third animal I voted for, as only three facilities outside of Florida keep them (unless I’m mistaken) and all are accredited by the AZA. I know that Columbus and Cincinnati both participate in efforts to rescue and rehabilitate them.
Only well-known accredited zoos with a lot of money can get giant pandas. While those zoos won’t necessarily be the absolute best in every aspect, they are guaranteed to meet certain standards for animal welfare and conservation.
I would say this somewhat applies to polar bears as well, seeing as few to no private, non-accredited zoos keep them, and most if not all of the current holders in this country seem well-regarded by the zoo community, even if the quality of their polar bears habitat isn’t anything exceptional.
Manatees were the third animal I voted for, as only three facilities outside of Florida keep them (unless I’m mistaken) and all are accredited by the AZA. I know that Columbus and Cincinnati both participate in efforts to rescue and rehabilitate them.
Conor McGarry
Well-Known Member
Id say none, the animals a zoo has doesn't really mean that much on how good a zoo is, but rather how well the animals are cared for and how well the exhibits are many zoos don't have rare animals found in very few collections doesn't mean that the zoo is not a bad zoo. My local zoo, Seneca Park doesn't have really have any "rare" animals but it still is a wonder full zoo even if some of the habitats are older and outdated like the elephants, polar bear, and tiger enclosures they are well suited for geriatric animals like what Seneca has
MOG2012
Well-Known Member
The fact that San Francisco Zoo was somewhat close to getting pandas makes that claim less accurate. While they have good conservation efforts, a lot of enclosures are bad. Memphis Zoo had pandas and they aren't the best zoo
San Francisco is still a pretty high-quality zoo in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider how many privately owned zoos and roadside menageries there are. Don’t forget that only ~5% of zoos in the US meet AZA requirements.
I’d argue that Memphis is probably on the level of the National Zoo or Atlanta at least.
Manatees are very good at stealing elections. That's how one got elected governor of Florida, very briefly, in the 1870s.
Conor McGarry
Well-Known Member
wait what, a manatee was govener of Florida?!?!
Only on a parallel Earth, Conor. On our Earth they know better than to get involved in politics.
Brayden Delashmutt
Well-Known Member
Hyenas obviously
Aardwolf
Well-Known Member
It's causation and correlation.
Years ago, I saw a chart that purported to show that Americans who rode horses had much better life expectancy than the average American. This implied that riding horses extended your lifespan. In reality, though, if you are wealthy enough to own horses for riding, you probably also have access to good medical care, can afford better quality food, etc.
Folks who've been reading my Notebook thread may have seen the story of a crummy, run down zoo where I worked that then received a cassowary. We did not suddenly become a good zoo as a result.
Years ago, I saw a chart that purported to show that Americans who rode horses had much better life expectancy than the average American. This implied that riding horses extended your lifespan. In reality, though, if you are wealthy enough to own horses for riding, you probably also have access to good medical care, can afford better quality food, etc.
Folks who've been reading my Notebook thread may have seen the story of a crummy, run down zoo where I worked that then received a cassowary. We did not suddenly become a good zoo as a result.
gerome
Well-Known Member
it is completely random, this question is not that serious to me, I just wanted to know what the community thinks about it. The question was what animals in collection "indicate" a good zoo. props should have said "could be indicators"
The selection feels extremely arbitrary, but regardless of what you put, there is only one correct answer.
I jest, but in reality, none of these would guarantee a zoo is great. It all comes down to what the zoo actually has and how it presents its collection. In fact, many of these animals are too "niche" to really be of any reliable indicator of quality (on the other hand, venomous snakes are so common, that their inclusion feels pointless).
For example, Zoo Tampa has manatees, venomous snakes (mostly natives), and gharials. And yet, that zoo is mid-tier at best (IMO, it's a top-tier collection dragged to hell by subpar exhibitry). Philadelphia, on the other hand, has NO venomous snakes and a single species of Bird-of-paradise. I consider Philadelphia to be the superior zoo.
Zoo Atlanta had Giant Pandas, yet that's not why that zoo was great (IMO, its reptile house and primate exhibits were the real stars). Bronx has gharials, venomous snakes, and birds-of-paradise. Yet that is not why Bronx is a great zoo (I've gone into much detail in my review). Reptile Gardens has an unmatched collection of venomous snakes. Doesn't make it great, though.
My point is that what makes a zoo great is a lot more than just a checklist of random and arbitrary species. When I consider what makes a zoo great, I don't just look at what animals they have; I also look at the taxonomic makeup, the existence of rarities and endangered species, the exhibits, the presentation, the context, the operations, etc.
And speaking of which, what is up with manatees leading the poll? I am not prepared to have people telling me that "Zoo Tampa is GREAT 'cause manatees lol".
Turtles, obviously. If your zoo isn't rocking a turtle collection that puts Chattanooga or Baltimore to shame, then I don't know what you're doing in life.
I jest, but in reality, none of these would guarantee a zoo is great. It all comes down to what the zoo actually has and how it presents its collection. In fact, many of these animals are too "niche" to really be of any reliable indicator of quality (on the other hand, venomous snakes are so common, that their inclusion feels pointless).
For example, Zoo Tampa has manatees, venomous snakes (mostly natives), and gharials. And yet, that zoo is mid-tier at best (IMO, it's a top-tier collection dragged to hell by subpar exhibitry). Philadelphia, on the other hand, has NO venomous snakes and a single species of Bird-of-paradise. I consider Philadelphia to be the superior zoo.
Zoo Atlanta had Giant Pandas, yet that's not why that zoo was great (IMO, its reptile house and primate exhibits were the real stars). Bronx has gharials, venomous snakes, and birds-of-paradise. Yet that is not why Bronx is a great zoo (I've gone into much detail in my review). Reptile Gardens has an unmatched collection of venomous snakes. Doesn't make it great, though.
My point is that what makes a zoo great is a lot more than just a checklist of random and arbitrary species. When I consider what makes a zoo great, I don't just look at what animals they have; I also look at the taxonomic makeup, the existence of rarities and endangered species, the exhibits, the presentation, the context, the operations, etc.
And speaking of which, what is up with manatees leading the poll? I am not prepared to have people telling me that "Zoo Tampa is GREAT 'cause manatees lol".
Speaking from a European perspective, this isn't true. Ouwehands dierenpark, who has both Giant pandas and Polar bears, is easily the worst of the Dutch Big Zoos. Quite a few of their enclosures are old and outdated and you can blame most of that on the owner of the zoo, a very rich man who considers this park his "pet project". He gets what he wants because he's rich, not because he's running a great zoo.
Honestly, I can't think of a lot of (European) zoos that have manatees that aren't a great zoo. Randers, Burgers', Beauval, Wroclaw. This is probably different in America, of course, where (rescue) manatees are probably a lot more common
As I have matured the less I think of qualities making zoos good [or, rather, enjoyable] overall... but rather how the qualities work together and balance each other out.
I think one example of this is with Zoo Vincennes vs. the Paris Menagerie [in my opinion]. The exhibit quality at Vincennes is what I'd call 'goodly modern', with modern ways of doing about things. This is rather in contrast to the Menagerie - which does have its share of modern-er exhibits.. yet also its hand of 'somewhat antiquated' ones. But it's with the species that the real contrast is - for its modern and expensive design, Vincennes has been markedly safe with regards to collection planning. There's not much there that one cannot find anywhere else, and the manatees were the main standout animal on my visit. The Menagerie on the other hand had a truly delightful collection [again, in my opinion], which whilst not always held in the most modern enclosures ever constructed [leopard and male orangutan in particular] one is able to gage that this is a zoo willing to make changes given the resources.
And so somehow I would say I preferred my time at Menagerie over Vincennes; but this is out of a balance of factors - if Vincennes was a bit more 'risk-taking' in regards to its collection I may well have enjoyed my time there more - though if Vincennes had a similar layout [that is, not much of one] and size to the Menagerie I may consider them neck and neck.
And so this is why I think trying to make a point for what makes a zoo 'good' is a tricky job. And I can only agree that having any of the above animals does not shoe-in a zoo for being good or certainly 'great'. I think if I was at a zoo when I randomly happened to see an aviary for a bird of paradise... as pleasured as I would be to see that I feel if it felt 'random' or out of place... as delighted as I would be to see it it probably wouldn't factor in to what I felt about the zoo as a whole.
I think one example of this is with Zoo Vincennes vs. the Paris Menagerie [in my opinion]. The exhibit quality at Vincennes is what I'd call 'goodly modern', with modern ways of doing about things. This is rather in contrast to the Menagerie - which does have its share of modern-er exhibits.. yet also its hand of 'somewhat antiquated' ones. But it's with the species that the real contrast is - for its modern and expensive design, Vincennes has been markedly safe with regards to collection planning. There's not much there that one cannot find anywhere else, and the manatees were the main standout animal on my visit. The Menagerie on the other hand had a truly delightful collection [again, in my opinion], which whilst not always held in the most modern enclosures ever constructed [leopard and male orangutan in particular] one is able to gage that this is a zoo willing to make changes given the resources.
And so somehow I would say I preferred my time at Menagerie over Vincennes; but this is out of a balance of factors - if Vincennes was a bit more 'risk-taking' in regards to its collection I may well have enjoyed my time there more - though if Vincennes had a similar layout [that is, not much of one] and size to the Menagerie I may consider them neck and neck.
And so this is why I think trying to make a point for what makes a zoo 'good' is a tricky job. And I can only agree that having any of the above animals does not shoe-in a zoo for being good or certainly 'great'. I think if I was at a zoo when I randomly happened to see an aviary for a bird of paradise... as pleasured as I would be to see that I feel if it felt 'random' or out of place... as delighted as I would be to see it it probably wouldn't factor in to what I felt about the zoo as a whole.