Toronto Zoo Why are they getting rid of animals from Toronto Zoo?

[kd20]

what the hell is our zoo doing we are getting rid of great animals like vasil to other zoos and while we are running out of animals like our only jaguar luca just died are we going to replace him or are we going to leave it a barren exibit like always.

 

[hyena142]

@kd20 First of all welcome to the TZ forum, always nice to see a fresh face

There are a lot of reasons for why animals are leaving, and all of them make sense. Toronto isn't dumping animals just because they want to. Amur tiger Vasili left because he was probably never going to breed here again, at least not for a very long time. We don't know how much longer Mazy's gonna live and her last litter has come and gone, and Vasili, being a proven sire, found an opportunity in Calgary to be put to good use and they jumped on it. It's better he leaves and helps the population (especially since he's risen considerably in the Canadian Amur tiger genetic rankings after Mila's death and other similar things) instead of just waiting here doing nothing until Mazy passes whenever that will be.

The jaguars will be replaced. The zoo already has plans to acquire a female from Granby, there's just no real point in bringing her in right this second while the Temple Ruin is closed for winter. The reason it hasn't happened yet is they wanted Luca to be comfortable in his final days and to not worry about sharing the exhibit with someone new. I have faith the new girl will arrive sometime next year. The zoo also has big plans to expand the jaguar habitat, and I'd recommend giving the Master Plan a read if you're interested in seeing what that's gonna be.

I wouldn't say we're running out of animals, the thing is the zoo is currently in the process of reducing the number a bit so they can zero in on the more prominent breeding species. Every time a species like, say, the clouded leopards leave the zoo, the money that would've gone to them is instead going to stuff like the amazing new outdoor orang exhibit, or the new stuff being added to the entrance, or the long delayed and necessary upgrades to the red pandas, jaguars and indoor orangs, or finally bringing the Domain animals out of the pit. Again, I'd recommend reading the Master Plan. Yes it sucks losing species but Toronto is currently in the process of playing catch-up with other zoos far more state of the art than itself, and that money has to come from somewhere.

 

[kd20]

@hyena142 i read the master plan some parts of it i like like bringing back the monorail a but there is other parts i don't like like getting rid of the Indian rhino or having these weird looking over head tubes with animals walking in it. or zoo 20 years ago in 2003 we had so many animals like the gaur, scimitar horned oryx, elk, reindeer, elephants, cougar, lynx, Caracel lynx, fur seal and etc now we have barely anything I go to the zoo every year and i see the same thing. The Canadian domain is dead Mayan temple ruins is now dead the only reason i went their was becuase the jaguar the Euraisa has the same animals and so does the tundra trek the only area that has half decent animals is Africa and even they have less animals now than before.

 

[TZFan]

@kd20, welcome.

The zoo isnt just reducing the number of species to free up space and money for the other species we are keeping, though @hyena142 is correct about that as a motive as well. The reasons species are phased out are vast and complex.

The Indian rhinos are leaving because their exhibit isn't as large as they really need by todays standards. The zoo really doesnt have a lot of options there to expand the exhibit enough to keep pace with improving husbandry standards. They looked at their options and the better choice was to dedicate that space to the Sumatran tigers and upgrade their space. The zoo has dont that in the past with other species. Its pretty normal.

The hippos are leaving because the zoo cant rationalize spending as much money as they would need to to fix all the problems with their exhibit and barn. The barn is deteriorating. The hippos are off exhibit a huge chunk of the year and there is good way to make their current barn accessible to the public during the winter. A new barn would be needed. The exhibit is under sized and would need to be massively expanded to hold a breeding pair and maturing calves but the AZA has also asked new hippo exhibits be able to house more hippos and possibly a bachelor herd. Thats a lot of land and money for a new barn and vastly expanded exhibit, plus the massive improvements needed to the filtration system required to support that. It would make the $12 mil spent on the orang exhibit look like chump change. They could do the work. There is the space in the savanna for it but for what they pay for that they could probably redevelop a huge portion of the savanna.

The reindeer were phased out for an entirely different reason. The zoo could have kept working with reindeer but they wanted to get into caribou instead so they could focus on conservation and research programs that would help a native species. Domesticated reindeer dont need the help Canadian caribou do. Makes more sense to devote the space the reindeer had to caribou so the zoo could carry out research. They have done the same thing with other species in the past. Choosing to work with the one with more conservation or research value.

The elk and cougars... well thats just the product of the zoo preparing to shift the domain to part of Eurasia. The zoo always works on phasing out the older animals and species before undertaking a massive area redevelopment. They just let them slowly die off and once the new area is ready they bring in new animals. Some species wont make the cut and others will be brought in. The temple is also in a thinning out phase to prepare for its redevelopment too.

Species like the fur seal are a different matter. When Toronto decided on them at opening they were hoping other zoos would want them too and they could build a sustainable breeding population. The Cape fur seals didnt take off that way. Eventually the zoo's group was all related and there wasnt new bloodlines to bring in and keep breeding and there wasnt anywhere to put those pups once they were grown, even if they could keep breeding. There werent any options so the seals were allowed to live out their lives. These days if a species doesnt have an SSP or have a demand based on education, research, outreach, conservation or display interests, its kinda hard to get that species. The zoo had gaur and while its not impossible to get more it is harder since there is no SSP and not a ton of places really want them for display.

Some species the zoo just gives up on because its hard to get animals across the border. Some of the ones they have traditionally had issues getting are hoofstock. That has cost Toronto a number of species over the years. Getting new breeding stock to keep our groups going was too hard. The sable antelope was tricky. Zoos in the US would swap out their males every 2-3 years when the breeding bull's daughters hit maturity. Toronto couldnt do that because it takes time to get hoofstock across the border. Puff Daddy was pretty genetically valuable but he was stuck with two older females whos last calves happened to be boys. To have kept the herd going they would have needed to bring up two or three females for Puff to breed with and then hope you ship surplus calves somewhere and eventually bring up a new male to replace Puff. Toronto is currently having that problem with the kudu. Owen died and it took a couple years to get Maynard who was no spring chicken, now Rosalita and Ruby are getting long in the tooth for females and Roux is already seeing her breeding years slipping away. I wont be too surprised if we dont get a male in a year if kudus end up phased out too. But thats not the zoo's choice. The rules surrounding shipping animals across the border are beyond the control of the zoo. Just the realities of the world. It can have a big impact though on the species Toronto chooses to keep. They are more likely to keep species that other zoos in Canada also have so they can mix and match mates until new genetics is needed.

As for getting rid of individuals that too isnt always the choice of the zoo. Any SSP species the zoo is either told to transfer an animal or asked to. If Toronto owns the animal like all of our gorillas, Toronto can look at the transfer request and choose to tell them to forget it or agree. Toronto has refused to transfer Johari for years. But if Toronto doesnt own the animal then they kinda have to do what the SSP request if thats what the owning zoo chooses. Vasili though a descendant of Tonghua and Pam probably doesn't even belong to Toronto. Even if Toronto wanted to keep him they might not have a right to keep him.

There are a ton of other reasons animals or species leave the zoo but as you can see its not just as simple as not wanting them... which is also sometimes the case. And its never a decision based on a single one of these factors. Its always complex.

 

[kd20]

@TZFan i understand what you are saying our needs to get rid of some animals to get new ones but Toronto Zoo needs to upgrade its animals like we used to be the top zoo in Canada and one of the best zoos in North America now we are no were near that because we lack in animals our zoo is spending to much money buildings than animals i didn't know a zoo was just buildings and not animals. If you look at our zoo now compared to the 80s and 90s we have lost at least 50% of our animals.

 

[Zoo adventures]

@kd20, welcome.

The zoo isnt just reducing the number of species to free up space and money for the other species we are keeping, though @hyena142 is correct about that as a motive as well. The reasons species are phased out are vast and complex.

The Indian rhinos are leaving because their exhibit isn't as large as they really need by todays standards. The zoo really doesnt have a lot of options there to expand the exhibit enough to keep pace with improving husbandry standards. They looked at their options and the better choice was to dedicate that space to the Sumatran tigers and upgrade their space. The zoo has dont that in the past with other species. Its pretty normal.

The hippos are leaving because the zoo cant rationalize spending as much money as they would need to to fix all the problems with their exhibit and barn. The barn is deteriorating. The hippos are off exhibit a huge chunk of the year and there is good way to make their current barn accessible to the public during the winter. A new barn would be needed. The exhibit is under sized and would need to be massively expanded to hold a breeding pair and maturing calves but the AZA has also asked new hippo exhibits be able to house more hippos and possibly a bachelor herd. Thats a lot of land and money for a new barn and vastly expanded exhibit, plus the massive improvements needed to the filtration system required to support that. It would make the $12 mil spent on the orang exhibit look like chump change. They could do the work. There is the space in the savanna for it but for what they pay for that they could probably redevelop a huge portion of the savanna.

The reindeer were phased out for an entirely different reason. The zoo could have kept working with reindeer but they wanted to get into caribou instead so they could focus on conservation and research programs that would help a native species. Domesticated reindeer dont need the help Canadian caribou do. Makes more sense to devote the space the reindeer had to caribou so the zoo could carry out research. They have done the same thing with other species in the past. Choosing to work with the one with more conservation or research value.

The elk and cougars... well thats just the product of the zoo preparing to shift the domain to part of Eurasia. The zoo always works on phasing out the older animals and species before undertaking a massive area redevelopment. They just let them slowly die off and once the new area is ready they bring in new animals. Some species wont make the cut and others will be brought in. The temple is also in a thinning out phase to prepare for its redevelopment too.

Species like the fur seal are a different matter. When Toronto decided on them at opening they were hoping other zoos would want them too and they could build a sustainable breeding population. The Cape fur seals didnt take off that way. Eventually the zoo's group was all related and there wasnt new bloodlines to bring in and keep breeding and there wasnt anywhere to put those pups once they were grown, even if they could keep breeding. There werent any options so the seals were allowed to live out their lives. These days if a species doesnt have an SSP or have a demand based on education, research, outreach, conservation or display interests, its kinda hard to get that species. The zoo had gaur and while its not impossible to get more it is harder since there is no SSP and not a ton of places really want them for display.

Some species the zoo just gives up on because its hard to get animals across the border. Some of the ones they have traditionally had issues getting are hoofstock. That has cost Toronto a number of species over the years. Getting new breeding stock to keep our groups going was too hard. The sable antelope was tricky. Zoos in the US would swap out their males every 2-3 years when the breeding bull's daughters hit maturity. Toronto couldnt do that because it takes time to get hoofstock across the border. Puff Daddy was pretty genetically valuable but he was stuck with two older females whos last calves happened to be boys. To have kept the herd going they would have needed to bring up two or three females for Puff to breed with and then hope you ship surplus calves somewhere and eventually bring up a new male to replace Puff. Toronto is currently having that problem with the kudu. Owen died and it took a couple years to get Maynard who was no spring chicken, now Rosalita and Ruby are getting long in the tooth for females and Roux is already seeing her breeding years slipping away. I wont be too surprised if we dont get a male in a year if kudus end up phased out too. But thats not the zoo's choice. The rules surrounding shipping animals across the border are beyond the control of the zoo. Just the realities of the world. It can have a big impact though on the species Toronto chooses to keep. They are more likely to keep species that other zoos in Canada also have so they can mix and match mates until new genetics is needed.

As for getting rid of individuals that too isnt always the choice of the zoo. Any SSP species the zoo is either told to transfer an animal or asked to. If Toronto owns the animal like all of our gorillas, Toronto can look at the transfer request and choose to tell them to forget it or agree. Toronto has refused to transfer Johari for years. But if Toronto doesnt own the animal then they kinda have to do what the SSP request if thats what the owning zoo chooses. Vasili though a descendant of Tonghua and Pam probably doesn't even belong to Toronto. Even if Toronto wanted to keep him they might not have a right to keep him.

There are a ton of other reasons animals or species leave the zoo but as you can see its not just as simple as not wanting them... which is also sometimes the case. And its never a decision based on a single one of these factors. Its always complex.

But why don't the US give animals, I know the border thing is difficult to cross. A lot of animals are leaving the zoo to the US. But the US zoo do not give a lot of animals. In your Toronto Zoo Births, Deaths and Transfers 2023 [Toronto Zoo]
There is more departure than arrivals.

 

[15399]

@hyena142 i read the master plan some parts of it i like like bringing back the monorail a but there is other parts i don't like like getting rid of the Indian rhino or having these weird looking over head tubes with animals walking in it. or zoo 20 years ago in 2003 we had so many animals like the gaur, scimitar horned oryx, elk, reindeer, elephants, cougar, lynx, Caracel lynx, fur seal and etc now we have barely anything I go to the zoo every year and i see the same thing. The Canadian domain is dead Mayan temple ruins is now dead the only reason i went their was becuase the jaguar the Euraisa has the same animals and so does the tundra trek the only area that has half decent animals is Africa and even they have less animals now than before.

I think you are being unnecessarily harsh to Toronto about things true for the majority of zoos in the continent. Due to increasing welfare standards and the fact keeper staffing levels needed have risen as a result, many zoos have had to either down-size their collection and/or switch to smaller species. Likewise, changing acquisition practices mean it is oftentimes more difficult now for zoos to acquire a particular species, oftentimes causing zoos to switch to another, more commonly housed species. While I only recently visited Toronto for the first time, they still have a lot of really neat animals around the zoo, and I am certain the animal welfare currently is significantly better than it was twenty years ago. Standards have risen substantially, and zoos need to evolve as a result.

i didn't know a zoo was just buildings and not animals. If you look at our zoo now compared to the 80s and 90s we have lost at least 50% of our animals.

Again, I think you are being unnecessarily harsh. Even more so than twenty years ago, the 1980s were a completely different time in terms of the philosophy of zookeeping. Many exhibits built in the 1980s are completely inadequate today, meaning zoos have to evolve, which can be difficult as zoos don't have endless money. I get it, while I wasn't alive in the 1980s I am also nostalgic for what some of my local zoos were like in my childhood (and I'm sure I'll feel even more like that twenty years from now), but oftentimes as much as I hate saying it the practices of zoos even twenty years ago, let alone forty years ago, is not ideal at all given our current understanding of animal welfare, behavior, nutrition, etc.

As for adding buildings, while these aren't necessarily the most exciting projects, they can often be essential to improving the lives of the zoo's animals and/or making the zoo more functional for visitors and stuff. I get it, if my local zoo was investing in administrative spaces all the time I'd become impatient for the animal stuff, but that stuff will happen- yet oftentimes the behind-the-scenes stuff are more urgent. This isn't a Toronto specific phenomena, but the case of zoos across the continent.

 

[TZFan]

I think you are being unnecessarily harsh to Toronto about things true for the majority of zoos in the continent. Due to increasing welfare standards and the fact keeper staffing levels needed have risen as a result, many zoos have had to either down-size their collection and/or switch to smaller species. Likewise, changing acquisition practices mean it is oftentimes more difficult now for zoos to acquire a particular species, oftentimes causing zoos to switch to another, more commonly housed species. While I only recently visited Toronto for the first time, they still have a lot of really neat animals around the zoo, and I am certain the animal welfare currently is significantly better than it was twenty years ago. Standards have risen substantially, and zoos need to evolve as a result.

Again, I think you are being unnecessarily harsh. Even more so than twenty years ago, the 1980s were a completely different time in terms of the philosophy of zookeeping. Many exhibits built in the 1980s are completely inadequate today, meaning zoos have to evolve, which can be difficult as zoos don't have endless money. I get it, while I wasn't alive in the 1980s I am also nostalgic for what some of my local zoos were like in my childhood (and I'm sure I'll feel even more like that twenty years from now), but oftentimes as much as I hate saying it the practices of zoos even twenty years ago, let alone forty years ago, is not ideal at all given our current understanding of animal welfare, behavior, nutrition, etc.

As for adding buildings, while these aren't necessarily the most exciting projects, they can often be essential to improving the lives of the zoo's animals and/or making the zoo more functional for visitors and stuff. I get it, if my local zoo was investing in administrative spaces all the time I'd become impatient for the animal stuff, but that stuff will happen- yet oftentimes the behind-the-scenes stuff are more urgent. This isn't a Toronto specific phenomena, but the case of zoos across the continent.

@Neil chace, I 100% agree with your points.

In 1974 when the zoo opened the world was a very different place. It did boast an incredible variety of rare and unique animals. Kinda sad I wasnt alive then to see it. But it was also a time when to fill your zoo up you just went to the wild and captured what you wanted. Lets face facts our beloved orang Puppe and gorilla Charles were not just orphaned when their mothers died of natural causes. Their mothers, probably Charles whole troop, were murdered and they were probably ripped from their mothers lifeless corpses, put into cages and brought to Toronto for our amusement. Some species didnt require the slaughter of their families obviously but the vast majority of the animals who populated the zoo when it first opened were wild animals captured specifically to be sold to zoos around the world. That is a practice that is now largely out of practice for North American zoos. I mean we still get wild orphans and injured animals but they are of the native variety mostly. That does significantly reduce the species one can get. For the most part there needs to be a viable population in North America if we are going to house a species. Some species like our Cape fur seals there just wasnt and that does decrease the options.

The sheer variety of species the zoo had when it opened also came down to how we thought about animals at the time. Toronto was touted for having big exhibits for its animals. They werent in the tiny prison cells of Riverdale Zoo. Toronto tried to build things that allowed the animals to do more natural things. Lets look at our polar bear habitat. When the zoo opened we had 9 bears over a year old and brought in 4 cubs under a year old (who didnt survive). So the plan was to keep at least 13 polar bears together in what today is just the main pool, maternity yard and barn space. Husbandry standards have changed. No one in their right mind today would keep that many bears in that little space. We have 4 adult bears today and we know we could keep a 5th but the exhibit is also more than two and a half times bigger. Even at that its a 14 year old exhibit and while Im sure it more than exceeded standards then its probably just meeting them now at just shy of an acre (if google did math right for me). Cochrane polar is the worlds largest (granted polar bears are all they keep) is 24 acres and includes a real lake. For a better argument Detroit's polar bear habitat is 4 acres. As we continue to learn more about the species we keep we need to adjust how we care for them to provide the best quality of life. That means when our polar bears need more space we have to start looking at the exhibits around it and deciding what is the better investment? The polar bears? The wolves? The caribou? It is something that happens all the time when any exhibit is redone. The question is are we doing the best we can for all the species in this space. That question popped up with the elephants. I will not go on my usual tyrad there. But when the zoo was built what is now our giraffe exhibit, less the indoor viewing (it was built later) and the 3rd yard, was our elephant exhibit. Came in at just about 1.5 acres with me being generous about useable space. We housed 8 adult elephants, including a maturing bull and was to hold calves as well. Todays largest zoo exhibit in the US, I think, is Disney's Animal Kingdom at 9.5 acres. The plan drawn up by the zoo at the time they decided to end the program would have been an 8 acre habitat with what would have been North America's largest indoor habitat. In this case the only species that would have been sacrificed was the hippos but it also would have limited future expansion opportunities for the savanna as most of the unused space would have elephants on it. Also would have cost a bloody fortune that could have been spent on a variety of other species. And while my memories of the rainforest from before the reno are spotty we lost a number of species so we could build what was at the time the worlds largest indoor gorilla habitat. Definitely cost us bongos. I dont recall the rest. Way better for our gorillas care to have their current indoor habitat than the much smaller exhibit they used to have which looked a lot like the prison cell we currently call the gorilla day room. Sometimes tough calls need to be made so that what you keep has the best life possible.

When the zoo was build in the late 1960's and early 1970's it was cutting edge. It was the first zoo in the world to display animals by geographic region and biome instead of by taxon. It didnt offer a monkey house displaying old and new world monkeys together. It displayed species with other species they would be likely to encounter in the wild. Mixed exhibits werent too popular but a series of exhibits that would showcase the animals of the savanna. Everything was brand new and built to the standards of the day which meant they were some of the best exhibits around. But the zoo has aged a lot in nearly 50 years. Toronto is in an age where it needs to reinvent itself. There are areas of the zoo like Indo, Indo Malaya and the Domain that have gone largely untouched other than husbandry or necessary upkeep upgrades in 5 decades (the Temple is newer but it is also pretty much as it was when it opened in the early 80s). Other areas like the Americas and Australiasia have had minor upgrades over the years but have not had a massive overhaul like the rainforest or savanna. Dont even get me started on what the called the redevelopment of Eurasia. Like most zoos its age Toronto is in a period of flux. It didnt really have a need to start redevelopment until the 90s when infrastructure in areas started to become inadequate based on various regulations. Naturally the zoo cannot afford to just redevelop the whole thing at once. It started with the savanna which at the time had the most problems and would have the greatest wow factor when complete. Once that was done they moved on and started to raise money for the rainforest which was done in two phased. Then Tundra Trek. Then kinda Australasia. Then in their minds Eurasia. The zoo is setting a pace, slow as it might be, get everything upgraded. Its hard when the zoo was built all at the same time because as things age they all need attention around the same time and there just isnt the funds to address it all in new massive projects. It had to be spread around and bandaids put on what could be fixed with a bandaid for now and the redevelopments had to go slower and leave out things to ensure money was available for the patch up jobs. But as we progress forward Toronto will have the projects spaced out as they were done one at time over a 5 to 10 year window. Eventually when one area needs an upgrade the zoo can focus on it because other areas of the zoo arent literally falling apart. Its a process all zoos go through. Older zoos have already spaced those projects. Newer ones will have to go through the same bottle neck of issues like Toronto is currently going through.

And I get building not being flashy or fun but they are necessary. The zoo had to redo the health center. It was an amalgamation of buildings with halls so narrow and spaces so tight many species couldnt be brought in. It was old and falling apart. Yes we didnt get anything cool while they built it but the Wildlife Health Centre we now have is state of the art. They can bring in the Amurs and Grizzlies if needed which they struggled to do before if they even could. They have top notch equipment meaning the zoo doesnt need to ship animals to Guelph as often for tests which reduces stress for the sick or injured animal. Our reproductive centre is truly world class and now they have facilities to match it and take their work to that next level. And even for us guests we can now visit the health center to see the important work being done there which was utterly impossible before. A brand new nutrition center is dull. I will admit that. I will visit it exactly once and then never again but it will let the nutrition team take better care of the animals. Its worth it. Bathrooms might not seem glitzy but my god they are needed. They have been the exact same since they were built in the 70's. They are dark, cramped and smelly. The new ones look amazing, are bright and I bet ventilated. It might seem like a little thing but it definitely leaves a better impression on guests if the bathrooms look nice. The work being done on the greenhouse is another good project. The plant collection is more expensive than the animal collection but it was largely off display. After the work is done the zoo can really showcase the hard work the horticulture team is doing. And I get the entrance might seem unnecessary but they are including things in it that will be revenue generating, same with the brewery and daycare. Sometimes you just need to invest in the boring stuff so you can take better care of the animals and guests.

 

[kd20]

@TZFan i understand what you are saying but for you information the elephant enclosure was 7 acres of land paws lied about the space and also you saying we took orphaned animals from their mothers in the wild if you say that then what is the point in having a zoo if is just prison for animals then. Also i am not being harsh on Toronto i am being rational twards them because I expected better from them because they were one of the most well known zoos in Canada and in North America now their nothing compared to that because they lost and exceptional mount of animals. i looked at the map of zoo in 1999 compared to now map we have lost at least 50 % of our animals and that's not good business because what is the point of going to a zoo when you seeing the same animals over and over again.

 

[Riverdale Zoo]

Riverdale Zoo was no prison, fact is we had an admirable collection of healthy animals and great success with reproduction which is the best measure of a zoos health. Riverdale operated on a tiny budget and never charged for entry or parking, Don’t be knocking Riverdale Zoo as an example of a poorly built or operated zoo, I visited Honolulu Zoo last week and by comparison that is a zoo that sadly needs help.

 

[HowlerMonkey]

@TZFan i understand what you are saying but for you information the elephant enclosure was 7 acres of land paws lied about the space and also you saying we took orphaned animals from their mothers in the wild if you say that then what is the point in having a zoo if is just prison for animals then. Also i am not being harsh on Toronto i am being rational twards them because I expected better from them because they were one of the most well known zoos in Canada and in North America now their nothing compared to that because they lost and exceptional mount of animals. i looked at the map of zoo in 1999 compared to now map we have lost at least 50 % of our animals and that's not good business because what is the point of going to a zoo when you seeing the same animals over and over again.

You are being harsh towards them and in fact it feels like you are singling them out. Several major zoos have lost numerous species over the years with the increase in husbandry and care standards. If you look at San Diego (both zoo and wild animal park), Zoo Miami, Detroit Zoo, Los Angeles Zoo, North Carolina Zoo and Milwaukee Zoo, you will see the same decrease in their populations of their species due to increasing standards, space and collection interests. I can tell you several zoo chatters on this forum would love for Toronto zoo to have the collection that they once had but the reality is that can never happen without huge influxes of capital that is near impossible. The decrease in collections is because of multiple guidelines and procedures that must take place outside the zoo. If you have gone through the forums, you would see how long it took for Toronto to get their Pygmy Hippo from France which gave us Penelope.

Also, because there are species within Canada, does not mean they are just available. I had a talk with the Domain Keeper a couple years ago who was telling me how difficult it was to get moose, even orphaned individuals due to protocols and procedures outside of the zoo.

The zoo itself still has numerous species that are far from common in collections. I have been to multiple zoos in North America and I can tell you that seeing species like the Przewalski Horse, Mouflon, Moose, Barbirusa, Nile Soft-Shell Turtle, Eastern Loggerhead Shrike and Black-Footed Ferret are not common. Again would we like the species Toronto all had at one point? Yes. Is it realistic without huge amounts of capital and the current border situation? No.

 

[HowlerMonkey]

Riverdale Zoo was no prison, fact is we had an admirable collection of healthy animals and great success with reproduction which is the best measure of a zoos health. Riverdale operated on a tiny budget and never charged for entry or parking, Don’t be knocking Riverdale Zoo as an example of a poorly built or operated zoo, I visited Honolulu Zoo last week and by comparison that is a zoo that sadly needs help.

The Riverdale Zoo’s enclosures were less than desirable though. Yes there was great success breeding but you can’t say those enclosures were amazing for its inhabitants. By today standards, those enclosures would be “prisons”. Yes, species breed and were healthy but that doesn’t mean their enclosures were acceptable.

 

[Riverdale Zoo]

The Riverdale Zoo’s enclosures were less than desirable though. Yes there was great success breeding but you can’t say those enclosures were amazing for its inhabitants. By today standards, those enclosures would be “prisons”. Yes, species breed and were healthy but that doesn’t mean their enclosures were acceptable.

Never said the enclosures were amazing although some actually were and my comparison to Honalulu zoo is an example of a today standards zoo. I lived in Riverdale zoo for 8 years and my daddy became curator having worked there for more than 40 years, as you said you were not even born when it existed, you have no clue about it. I worked in the new metro zoo before and when it was opened to the public, I have a different insight and perspective. Riverdale was a good zoo, the new zoo is bigger.

 

[HowlerMonkey]

My uncle attended Riverdale Zoo as his home zoo very frequently and has numerous photo albums of pictures of the Riverdale Zoo from his time in Toronto including when Toronto Zoo opened and the opening of the Gaur exhibit. I can assure you I have a very good idea of it as I was more than excited to visit the Riverdale site thanks to my Uncle’s experiences at the zoo when I first moved to Toronto. My interests in zoos are due his old photo albums of Riverdale /Metro Toronto and the Milwaukee Zoo guidebook from its opening.

That does not mean I think the animals were not looked after or that the zoo was poorly managed. The zoo definitively did well with what it had to work with at the time and I’m not saying your perspective is wrong. My point I was making was that several of their enclosures were outdated and were prison like by the time of the opening of the current Toronto Zoo. I say this as the zoo I grew up with went through something very similar by the time it closed as we knew the owners (Spruce Haven in Sault Ste Marie). The zoo was good from our perspective but it also was outdated despite their best efforts working with what they have.

I don’t want to high jack this thread’s topic but you are welcome to message me to discuss things further. I will be more than open to it.

 

[cypher]

The way I see it, yes, it sucks that the Toronto Zoo is decreasing it's variety of animals, but these sacrifices in animals is to help build a better zoo of tomorrow. The zoo can now look at increasing the quality of life for the animals it has through better care, and better habitats. Also, the future isn't written in stone. There is always the chance that Toronto Zoo will work to increase it's animal population when the time's right.

 

[kd20]

@cypher your not listening to me if we are loosing a exceptional amount of animals then people are going to stop coming because what is the point of coming to a zoo and seeing the same animals over and over again.

 

[Zooer]

@kd20 - I don't think people are not listening to you, I think they have a different viewpoint.

I am a regular visitor to the zoo, and yes, I've noticed the change in the number of species represented, and yes, I will miss particular animals when they are phased out (I know everyone has different favourites - but my sad day will be the day the river hippos go), however: I'm still excited about the direction the zoo is going and will continue to visit.

From my perspective (and it's perfectly valid that it's different from your own) - I would much prefer to go to a zoo where I feel the animals have a lot of space and different exhibits where they can rotate and get a better "life-fulfilling experience". For example - yes, it's unfortunate the gaur are not at the zoo, however: the outdoor orangutan exhibit is outstanding. And the o-ring extensions across the zoo will be amazing once the orangs are comfortable on them. That is only possible because the gaur are no longer there.

I also don't like going to a zoo or aquarium, or taking friends/visitors, and feeling embarrassed that the animals are in a restricted or small space without some variability in their lives. I would much rather walk further between exhibits and different species and get a glimpse of them in a more natural environment (where possible). The surroundings of the animals is more important to me than ticking off that I've walked up to another "similar looking" cage with a different animal that is bored, or worse pacing, in a square box. The example I'll give for this is where the zoo has combined exhibits (for example in the America's pavilion). This has resulted in fewer animals, but for me at least, a better experience. Most of the zoos I've been to are in Canada or across Europe. There are a number of times in Europe where I've seen an animal in a concrete or hard packed dirt exhibit with no trees, plants or water features than I do see in Toronto.

I also like the zoo's conservation message - the windows they installed and the message boards about the blanding turtles to see what used to be "behind the scenes" is way more exciting, and in part that's what some of the "building costs" go to. Or now seeing the water filters, or knowing they're putting a chiller into the polar bear pool (does anyone have an update on that?), adds to my experience.

I'm also conscious that the Toronto City Council (who technically control the budget) is very focused on cost (they do have an entire city to run), and ticket prices can only go up so much, and there is only a limited pool of fundraising available. I am more excited for some projects than others, but I do think that the current management team has a very exciting vision that overall will increase my enjoyment at the zoo especially considering the constraints they are facing that some other facilities will not.

I'll say one last thing - which is that because I go so frequently, I don't mind that some days it's hard to see a cheetah (for example) because of how big (and uneven) the terrain in the exhibit is - but I do enjoy the days when they're running around or moving and have the space to do so. So some exhibits end up being a touch disappointing "on the day", but overall it's a good day at a facility that I feel comfortable supporting.

I don't know if that helps at all - but I'm not going to stop going to the zoo because they have to "right size" the number of animals they have. And sure - I have a membership, but I certainly blow a lot of money on pizzas, and carousels and bringing guests with me. The part that makes it more fun for people that come with me is when I can (thanks to this forum) tell people the names of the animals, and where they came from (or where they are going) and provide some context for the exhibits. For me - that's increased signage with background on particular "animals" in addition to the generic "this is a kangaroo" because it makes the contact more real and can potentially then connect more with the conversation message.

 

[15399]

@cypher your not listening to me if we are loosing a exceptional amount of animals then people are going to stop coming because what is the point of coming to a zoo and seeing the same animals over and over again.

I don't think you are necessarily speaking for why all people visit a zoo. Sure, some visitors may be disappointed to see certain species leave the collection, but most visitors don't come to the zoo wanting to see a certain number of species, and at a zoo like Toronto likely don't even visit the majority of the zoo each time. Most visitors are looking to spend a fun day outside with their family, and while they want to see animals, aren't looking to see as many species as possible, or to see certain rare/unusual species. In fact, the species the average visitor is probably most interested in are the ones Toronto Zoo has invested in keeping- such as great apes, big cats, and polar bears. Zoo enthusiasts who visit multiple zoos are the exception, not the rule, and just because you've been disappointed by the direction Toronto Zoo has taken doesn't mean everyone else is. I happen to like seeing "the same animals over and over again", as it shows that the zoo is committed to keeping those species and are invested in their conservation, education, etc., however it is always nice to see some new animals as well.

 

[kd20]

@Neil chace @Zooer this year Toronto Zoo spent more than triple the amount of money they were supposed spend on there renovations and a half of it is just for buildings the other half is for the monorail and habitat expansions and building new exibits. I can understand that part some enclosures like the cheetah and amur tiger or the common eland. Some of the abandoned enclosures need to be used like the loop wood bison enclosure in the Canadian domain or the old Carecal lynx exibit beside the lion enclosure but if Toronto zoo is spending all their on renovations for buildings and not for getting new species of animals then what is the point of going to the zoo. When just looking at buildings i didn't know a zoo was just for buildings and by the way the new main entrance looks dumb.

 

[Zoo adventures]

@Neil chace @Zooer this year Toronto Zoo spent more than triple the amount of money they were supposed spend on there renovations and a half of it is just for buildings the other half is for the monorail and habitat expansions and building new exibits. I can understand that part some enclosures like the cheetah and amur tiger or the common eland. Some of the abandoned enclosures need to be used like the loop wood bison enclosure in the Canadian domain or the old Carecal lynx exibit beside the lion enclosure but if Toronto zoo is spending all their on renovations for buildings and not for getting new species of animals then what is the point of going to the zoo. When just looking at buildings i didn't know a zoo was just for buildings and by the way the new main entrance looks dumb.

The new entrance will attract more visitors if the zoo looks new, maybe more people will go to visit. The entrance is too old. After all these renovations, maybe they gonna bring back some cool animal.