Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

ZooNerd1234 said:
I originally started a thread on "unpopular zoo opinions" although that post was moved to this thread.
Click to expand...
It could be because the thread you started is already similar to this thread which had been started a bit ago, hot takes being basically unpopular opinions. Keeps the threads less disorganized if one of the mods deems it fits into an already talked about topic/discussion :)
 
I don’t like dark nocturnal exhibits. I’d rather see the animal sleeping in the light of day than hardly see anything at all.
 
Not sure if this has been said already in this thread, but here goes - Elephant Odyssey at the San Diego Zoo is not only a good exhibit with a bad rap, but it's one of the best elephant exhibits in the United States. Not only does it have a decently unique purpose in housing geriatric elephants (and one of the best, if not *the* best holding facilities to boot), it also has a unique message about the past, present and future of the natural world. Does it have flaws? Yes, of course! With the look of the "utilitrees", clunky sightlines, obvious fencing and godawful lion habitat, along with said brilliant/unique message being slightly muddled by nonobvious signage, one can definitely see why this exhibit has been dragged through the metaphorical tar pit. But the good elements should definitely be appreciated and nuance should be brought into any discussion involving Elephant Odyssey.
 
Some non-hippo hot takes lol:

First - I'm pro-zoo, on the fence about cetaceans. But I understand the issue is complicated.

1) Georgia Aquarium's marine mammal exhibits are pitifully small. The dolphin one is an embarrassment consider it's relatively new and they still made it extremely small and shallow. The sea lion exhibit is also painfully small.

2) Zoos could do more to encourage hunting instincts with large predators. We've all seen pacing lions/tigers/etc and I think we could be doing more to keep them busy.

3) Zoos need more enrichment coordinators - of course this could be limited because of money but I wish zoos had the ability to have folks who's entire purpose is enrichment

4) AZA needs to do more to wield its influence around the world to end captures of cetaceans (it has a really weak stance on Taiji, for example)
 
zoogoer92 said:
2) Zoos could do more to encourage hunting instincts with large predators. We've all seen pacing lions/tigers/etc and I think we could be doing more to keep them busy.

3) Zoos need more enrichment coordinators - of course this could be limited because of money but I wish zoos had the ability to have folks who's entire purpose is enrichment
Click to expand...
One thing a Zoo near me used to do was stick a chunk of meat at the very top of a 20ft wooden pillar, and their tigers would climb up the vertical pole to grab the meat. I'm not sure if they do this any more, but at the time I did think "Is this the only enrichment they do?" and thought it could've been more varied.
 
zoogoer92 said:
3) Zoos need more enrichment coordinators - of course this could be limited because of money but I wish zoos had the ability to have folks who's entire purpose is enrichment
Click to expand...

Why do zoos need people whose job is purely enrichment when most keepers are more than capable of making good enrichment? If you're suggesting that zoos should put more time into the creation of new enrichment, I would oftentimes agree. However, I think the better solution would be giving the keepers smaller sections so they have more time to spend on enrichment, training, etc. and not a person to only do enrichment.
 
Neil chace said:
Why do zoos need people whose job is purely enrichment when most keepers are more than capable of making good enrichment? If you're suggesting that zoos should put more time into the creation of new enrichment, I would oftentimes agree. However, I think the better solution would be giving the keepers smaller sections so they have more time to spend on enrichment, training, etc. and not a person to only do enrichment.
Click to expand...

Such a good point! I should clarify, I don't think keepers are incapable! But as someone who is in close contact with keepers, I know they often have a lot to work on and don't necessarily have the time to focus on innovative enrichment. In my dream world I'd have someone within the zoo bureaucracy who is kind of the point person for getting the resources and maintaining a zoo-wide enrichment program.

But absolutely the keepers would be the ones administering it etc. For example - if keepers in a lion exhibit wanted a feeding pole or something installed, there could be a point-person for them to go to that focuses on enrichment stuff - and that person can be the one to deal with the logistics
 
zoogoer92 said:
3) Zoos need more enrichment coordinators - of course this could be limited because of money but I wish zoos had the ability to have folks who's entire purpose is enrichment
Click to expand...
Pretty much a requirement already for an AZA zoo to have or at least someone has this role as a part of their job.
Neil chace said:
Why do zoos need people whose job is purely enrichment when most keepers are more than capable of making good enrichment? If you're suggesting that zoos should put more time into the creation of new enrichment, I would oftentimes agree. However, I think the better solution would be giving the keepers smaller sections so they have more time to spend on enrichment, training, etc. and not a person to only do enrichment.
Click to expand...
zoogoer92 said:
Such a good point! I should clarify, I don't think keepers are incapable! But as someone who is in close contact with keepers, I know they often have a lot to work on and don't necessarily have the time to focus on innovative enrichment. In my dream world I'd have someone within the zoo bureaucracy who is kind of the point person for getting the resources and maintaining a zoo-wide enrichment program.
Click to expand...
Exactly. These positions are focused on enrichment planning, scoring, development, problem solving, etc.
 
Echobeast said:
Pretty much a requirement already for an AZA zoo to have or at least someone has this role as a part of their job.


Exactly. These positions are focused on enrichment planning, scoring, development, problem solving, etc.
Click to expand...
I knew it was an actual standard for AZA!
1.6.2. The institution must have a specific paid staff member(s) or committee assigned for enrichment program oversight, implementation, assessment, and interdepartmental coordination of enrichment efforts.
 
Okay, I don't know if this is AS HOT as Im thinking in my mind, but, I personally think that the Monterey Bay Aquarium Is better than the Georgia Aquarium.

GRANTED, I'VE NEVER BEEN TO GEORGIA (although I really want to) but, I think that what Monterey has put on display far excels Georgia. Sure the Whale Sharks and Manta Ray's are extremely cool, but Blue & Yellow Fin Tuna, Sun Fish, a Kelp Forrest Display that has Live Kelp, one of the biggest school (if not THE BIGGEST) of Anchovies on display, Mahi Mahi, Seven Gill Sharks, etc. Are way cooler in my opinion. But I think the Cherry on Top right now is their new Deep Sea Exhibit (The World's 1st Large Scale Deep Sea Exhibit). With all the Animals they're talking about potentially housing, AND THE ANIMALS THAT THEY'VE ALREADY CONFIRMED TO HAVE IN HOUSE such as:
-Bloody Belly Comb Jelly
-Mooderia Rotunda (Jellyfish)
-A Species of Siphonophore they actually cultured
-Salmon Snail Fish
And a couple unnamed species of Starfish, Sponges, and Sea Pens.

Along with the animals they have showed off for short periods of time in the past including:
-Juvenile Great White Sharks
-Vampire Squid
-Dumbo Octopus
-Glass Squid
-and 1 or 2 other Deep Sea Cephalopods.

In my opinion, the Technology and Scientific Advances made to now keep these Animals Long Term in Aquariums is far more impressive than what it takes to keep Whale Sharks and Manta Ray's (no disrespect) since they need Freezing Temps, Low Oxygen, and have to be collected by ROV.

While Keeping Whale Sharks and Manta Ray's is no joke, I just think that housing Deep Sea Animals that have never been on display and have taken Years of Advancement to crack the code into keeping them long term is a lot cooler.
 
My hot take is that, Ocean Voyager (which is a top notch zoo exhibit for sure) aside, Georgia Aquarium is incredibly and entirely average at best and honestly mediocre at worst. I also agree that some of the marine mammal habitats are just awful.

I can't comment as I've yet to ever make it to Shedd or MBA, but my interpretation is that they are miles above Georgia as are many other great US aquariums. I think Tennessee Aquarium often gets overlooked because they have such a heavy focus on freshwater environments.

~Thylo
 
I think of ocean voyager as: if i was an anthropomorphic grouper I'd be happy af

if I was an athropmorphic whale share i'd be like "cool ik i was bycatch and im glad i wasn't turned into sea food but also it could be a lil bigger in here"
 
ChIkEn NuGrEt said:
What I really mean is that if an enclosure is just a grassy field with a shelter and a few trees it’s boring. A good enclosure needs rockwork some source of water that looks natural, a bit of theming, and enrichment.
Click to expand...

Your definition of a boring exhibit would suit many hoofstock species just fine. Though yeah for a zoo-goer it does make for a bit of a boring exhibit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top