I think the place biodiversity is an issue isn't the AZA- it's in the institutions themselves. Too many zoos choose not to have biodiverse collections. There's no reason a small zoo needs to keep multiple species of big cat- especially if they also don't keep any ungulates species. I'm all for biodiversity- but all the AZA does is manage populations for the species that zoos are already keeping in large numbers. The AZA can't force zoos to keep species that they don't want to. Ideally, each zoo would choose to maintain a biodiverse collection, including ungulates, large and small carnivorans, primates, other mammals, birds, and herps. One zoo I think does a good job of this is the Rosamond Gifford Zoo, which keeps a very diverse collection of animals while not neglecting exhibit quality.
I feel like that’s mainly because institutions know that public are more interested in famous/well-known animals like elephants, gorillas and giraffes. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you, but it has a lot to do with public interest.
Why is it a problem that some zoos make a lot of money? It's not as if all the money San Diego generates is being taken from the zoo by greedy owners; the zoo is a non-profit orgnaization and more money being earned equals more money that can be put towards conservation efforts and exhibit improvements.
I'd add that another major reason for the uniformity and monotony in zoos is an ongoing change of leadership and direction. Major zoos are more and more led by people with a background in business management than in zoology, veterinary medicine etc. Their main focus is commercialism, risk minimization and profit maximization, and given how expensive it is to keep a zoo running (especially in a pandemic), one cannot truly blame them for that, at least from a business pov. So instead of trying to create something original (with the inherent risk to fail), they rather rely on the very same zoo architecture companies creating the very same "Asian highland / temple", "South American Rainforest", "African Savannah" etc. set pieces, with only a slight variation of the array of easily available species. But don't give up your hopes yet: smaller institutions with a limited budget and a more practically / zoologically minded leadership will have to find different ways to face the competition with the larger zoos for visitors. And this can, among others, lead to more original concepts and the husbandry of species more and more neglected by the major zoos. The German Tierpark Schönebeck with its focus on rodents and other small mammals is a good example for this. And even my little WdG is falling into that niche, with less and less German speaking zoos keeping venomous animals.
I feel like zoo enthusiasts will define the success of these exhibits very differently than zoo guests and the zoos themselves. I would guess that they believe all of these are highly successful exhibits.
You mean like you believing that the "Scutes Family Gallery" at CMZ is an undisputed success? j/k
In my opinion, San Diego Zoo is a better facility.
I didn’t say it was a “negative thing”
If you didn't mean it that way then apologies, but this does read as negative to me:I didn’t say it was a “negative thing”
By nearly every metric it is. It's just on forums like these that it gets criticized. Everyone has a right to their opinion but in that way, you are kind of helping me make my point that these exhibits that are usually bashed on this forum but are widely loved by the public and praised by keepers and zoo officials. I personably don't think any of the exhibits mentioned deserve as much hate as they do here but I mean, not a lot of people here actually have any say in the designs of these exhibits.You mean like you believing that the "Scutes Family Gallery" at CMZ is an undisputed success? j/k
Only by the metrics you deem correct. And no, it's not just this forum. If you presented this on an European reptile keeper forum, it'be shredded to pieces.
They do - by not visiting CMZ and not recommending it.
Financially, that might be comparably little, but it's still money lost to your employer. So much about making a point...
You are the one who keeps bringing up Scutes. I’m pretty sure everyone here is tired of hearing about it so maybe cool it with the passive aggressiveness. I’ve never claimed that it’s flawless, and I don’t have evidence that people like it other than the hundreds of guests that have brought it up how much they liked it but that’s not sufficient for you. And not every exhibit needs to be copied for it to be a success. I don’t know where you got that idea. Sometimes a unique exhibit only fits with one institution. Although many people here have compared Scutes with Animal Ambassador Village. If experts in the field are widely against it it would come up in accreditation for AZA. CMZ passed in 2015 and is up again this year. Also you have seemed to completely missed the point just to slyly claim you beat it. My point is that your small financial contributions to the zoo based on a small number of peoples’ opinions on an online enthusiast forum is hardly going to affect the ultimate success of an exhibit. I still encourage people to actually visit these exhibits (Animal Encounter Village, International Orangutan Center, Elephant Oddysey included) before solidifying your opinions. Talk to the keepers. I’m sure they’ll have more information about how the exhibit works and the welfare of the animals than some Internet personality halfway across the globe who seeks to bring up this conversation whenever we are in the same thread.Only by the metrics you deem correct. And no, it's not just this forum. If you presented this on an European reptile keeper forum, it'be shredded to pieces.
"Everyone has a right to an opinion" Not if this opinion runs contrary to federal law, as pointed out by @antonmuster and others. That this kind of husbandry would be impossible and illegal in several European countries should make you reconsider your claim of flawlessness (which, based on previous encounters, you won't). You're still unable to bring up any solid evidence, any data confirming its alleged broad popularity among visitors and zoo keepers beyond CMZ. If it were an undisputed success, then, based on the unimaginative commercialism mentioned above, others would have copied it. Thankfully, they haven't.
They do - by not visiting CMZ and not recommending it.
Oh, I'm not the aggressive one.
You're usually the one automatically jumping into defensive mode whenever the topic is brought up. Why not just ignore it?You're correct - that does not suffice. Whether it is "an ultimate success" has yet to be seen.
Why do you always feel the need to call for higher authorities whenever you feel challenged? Apparently, AZA officials are more lenient to inadequate reptile husbandry than other zoo associations. Once again: this kind of exhibition would never be allowed in several other countries, including the one where I live. My federal veterinary office would not have it. Just think about that for once.
So I'm "some Internet personality halfway across the globe" now. Wow. How precise and flattering.
