Worst AZA Zoo You've Visited?

HTZ

HTZ

Member
Based on welfare of the animals, size/cleanliness of the exhibits, or anything else that seemed below sub-par for an AZA zoo.
 
I hate to say it since it's the zoo closest to me, but in terms of overall size and exhibit quality it's got to be Greenville Zoo. Their primates that aren't orangutans all seem to have very inadequate exhibits, their lion exhibit is way too small (although they are in the middle of expanding it, thankfully), their domestic area is just really dismal with such minimal natural substrate I'm honestly surprised they even bothered (and to be fair, this seems to be their next target area after the lion). It's especially unfortunate because they do have a disproportionate number of especially charismatic species for their small size (lion, leopard, giraffes, orangutans, red pandas, siamangs), while also trending noticeably downwards in terms of smaller "filler" species over the last decade.

Perhaps Lowcountry Zoo in Brookgreen Gardens also bears mentioning, as it's even lighter on species count and exclusively exhibits natives and domestics, but at least their exhibits are incredibly naturalistic and spacious. But I wonder if they'd be in the running for lowest species count at an AZA facility?
 
biggest_dreamer said:
Perhaps Lowcountry Zoo in Brookgreen Gardens also bears mentioning, as it's even lighter on species count and exclusively exhibits natives and domestics, but at least their exhibits are incredibly naturalistic and spacious. But I wonder if they'd be in the running for lowest species count at an AZA facility?
Click to expand...
Lowest species count at an AZA facility is almost certainly a title belonging to the Baylor University Bear Habitat, with a total species count of one!
 
Worst AZA will be divided by the years, the AZA has become much more stringent on quality since 2016 or so. A lot of the marginal zoos lost or voluntarily gave up their accreditation around that time. The worst zoo that I have been to that was AZA is the Jackson Zoo, they gave up their accreditation in 2016. The worst current AZA zoo that I have been to would probably be the Central Florida Zoo. Some of their primate and large mammal habitats leave a lot to be desired, but it isn't a bad place really.
 
In the 2000s, John Ball Zoo still kept their tigers in a tiny, round enclosure. I remember seeing one of the cats just walk round and round in circles, and it was the first time I remember seeing an animal in what was a clearly inadequate enclosure. For that, I might nominate the zoo of that era for this, but that tiger enclosure is long gone now, replaced with a much larger and more naturalistic one, and none of the other contemporary enclosures are anywhere near as shoddy as the old tiger exhibit.
 
I am going to second @biggest_dreamer on Greenville Zoo; it's currently my lowest-ranked AZA facility and for pretty much the same reasons. The primate exhibits are among the worst I have seen in an AZA facility, made even more jarring by the fact that A) most of them are fairly new and B) I got to see Atlanta's excellent primate exhibits (with some of the same species, no less) during the same week, which really put into perspective how awful Greenville's are.

The zoo also heavily utilizes wood-and-wire aviaries, which I am not fond of as they make it difficult to get good pictures (especially if it's sunny out, since the mesh is very reflective). Most of the exhibits are also just underwhelming, with the Pampas being the only real standout. And with just a hair over 50 species, it's one of the smallest AZA collections I have visited (not counting specialist facilities like the Grizzly and Wolf Discovery Center). Finally, the facility itself just doesn't have much going for it; it lacks a true standout species or exhibit, the zoo itself is small and it's hard to justify spending any more than a few hours, even for someone who normally spends the entire day at zoos (though it being a small zoo actually played to my advantage as I was simply stopping over on my way down to Atlanta.
 
Astrotom3000 said:
Most of the exhibits are also just underwhelming, with the Pampas being the only real standout.
Click to expand...
While I agree with this, even this exhibit just recently got gutted by the anteater getting transferred out. The rheas are now supplemented by the southern screamers from the previously-diverse oasis (which also lost its black swan some months back so now it’s down from three species down to just Chilean flamingos), but having two birds here just doesn’t “pop” in the same way the mammal/bird combo did. I’m desperately hoping they can bring in another solid mammal or two (some combination of another anteater, capybaras, maras, a tapir, or something similar) because that exhibit really was the best thing the zoo had going for it.
 
I apparently need to start going to worse zoos. (That’s…that’s a joke.)

I say that because the worst zoo accredited by the AZA I’ve been to is Stone Zoo, a place I’ve talked about a few times before. And I honestly feel a little bad calling it “the worst” in this category because it’s mostly fine. I point it out as “the worst” because it does unfortunately have many below-average exhibits. Some individual enclosures, like those for river otters and yak, are painfully inappropriate, Yukon Creek has awful exhibits for black bears, bald eagles, and especially reindeer, and Windows to the Wild may actually be the worst exhibit complex I’ve ever seen.
 
Como Zoo isn't a bad zoo necessarily- I in fact take pains to defend it when my friends complain- but it leaves a lot to be desired for sure. It's a fairly old facility (1897) and is owned and operated by the City of St. Paul. These two things essentially translate to two problems: One, a lot of the exhibits were not constructed with modern ideas of welfare in mind, and two, the funding for major projects depends a lot on the city. The hoofstock building in particular comes to mind as one that is certainly up to code, but far from up to modern standards of most visitors.

I think it seems a lot worse than it really is because it's immediately juxtaposed by the Como Conservatory, a structure that is much more visually appealing from the outside and one that does not have to reckon with such hot-button issues as animal welfare and "zoochosis". Nobody's gonna say a fern isn't living out its true wild lifestyle, you know? Farther away is the Minnesota Zoo, which is ~2690% the size of Como (17 acres vs 485) and while much of that land is undeveloped, it uses its size to its advantage and has much larger, more "natural"-looking habitats.

I think it's a good zoo. I like it! I'd argue it has more ABC species than the Minnesota Zoo does. They've got two species of great ape while the MN zoo has zero. They've got lions, giraffes, polar bears, zebras; MN zoo doesn't have any of those. But I find that a lot of suburban Minnesotans view the Como Zoo as this terribly abusive facility when they in fact take pretty solid care of their animals- they're just doing the best with the infrastructure they've got.

I haven't visited many bad zoos- Como is just the least up-to-date that comes to mind.
 
My problem with Como Park is that I find it incredibly boring. It has a very standard list of very standard animals in very standard exhibits. It doesn't try to do anything unique and as such all of it fails to stick in your mind. Como Park isn't a bad zoo, but IMO you would get more out of most zoos, even ones that are far worse than it.

Next time I get to the Twin Cities I'm priorizing Sustainable Safari over it. ;)
 
I feel a bit bad talking about it here because overall, I don’t think it’s a bad zoo by any means, still an AZA-accredited facility with high standards for animal welfare, but Milwaukee County Zoo is definitely one of the weaker AZA facilities I’ve visited. This is mainly because many (though by no means all) of the indoor animal enclosures in Primates of the World, the Small Mammal House, and Big Cat Country strike me as outdated, being too small and unnaturalistic for their inhabitants. There are also some outdated brown bear enclosures in the North American section, that from what I can remember still have a purely mock-rock floor. Even some of the newer exhibits, like the new hippo habitat, seem too small, although the new elephant complex is rather nice. Overall, though I do have a lot of respect for this zoo and their commitment to conservation and the care of the their animals, I do think there are a lot of renovations in order to truly bring it into the 21st century.
 
Montgomery Zoo was accredited when I last visited (not anymore). Most of the exhibits were decent, but some of them were on the dated side. The reptile house was the only really poor aspect of the facility, with dimly-lit terrariums, peeling wallpaper, and moldy 1970s carpeting. Thankfully I’ve heard that the zoo is getting a new reptile building.
 
I hadn’t been to too many AZA zoos but the “worst” AZA zoo I have been to is Santa Fe College Teaching Zoo. Other than the icky capuchin enclosure, most of the enclosures aren’t really impressive. However, having worked there I can assure you that the staff and management really do care for the animals and if they had enough funds I am sure the zoo would have had a humongous makeover.
 
biggest_dreamer said:
While I agree with this, even this exhibit just recently got gutted by the anteater getting transferred out. The rheas are now supplemented by the southern screamers from the previously-diverse oasis (which also lost its black swan some months back so now it’s down from three species down to just Chilean flamingos), but having two birds here just doesn’t “pop” in the same way the mammal/bird combo did. I’m desperately hoping they can bring in another solid mammal or two (some combination of another anteater, capybaras, maras, a tapir, or something similar) because that exhibit really was the best thing the zoo had going for it.
Click to expand...

If I had a nickel for every time a zoo in the Carolinas that starts with "Green" lost their anteater in their mixed South America exhibit, I would only have 2 nickels, but isn't it weird that it happened twice?

Yeah, the removal of the Anteater is definitely a bummer, as I feel the birds would not do much to really liven up the exhibit. I really hope they add an animal that swims like the Tapir or Capybara so they can take advantage of that deep pool in the corner of the exhibit (an obvious leftover from when the exhibit held elephants).

birdsandbats said:
This thread is jus proof that the AZA is indeed a high standard of care if the worst we can come up with are zoos that are just boring or a bit behind on the times.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Even with Greenville listed as my least-favorite AZA facility, I would still not call it a bad zoo. Its worst crimes are being mostly boring and underwhelming with little in the way in terms of standout qualities, along with a few outdated exhibits.
 
I’m not sure why I didn’t think of them before, but Seaworld San Diego would be another contender for one of the weakest AZA facilities I’ve been to. Although the orca tanks are probably the worst, just about all of the marine mammal enclosures with the exception of the sea otters and mayyybe the bottlenose dolphin habitat seemed too small to me. Beyond that, though, the indoor enclosures (Penguin Encounter, sharks, sea turtles, etc) are all pretty nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top