Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

While I still have exhibit design fresh in my mind, I think Zoo360 style "overhead trails" are a genius idea for zoos to give more space for their animals, but they shouldn't be there *just for being there*. Philadelphia's justification for inventing Zoo360 was ingenious, in the sense that the animals that they had in previously static exhibits could explore beyond their initial territory, and they have the choice to explore and rotate. (And I feel that this concept can work for certain species that Philadelphia used to have, but I've ranted and raved about it for long enough, IYKYK.) Saint Louis' Primate Canopy Trails is a genius way of having spacious outdoor habitats for all of their species, without having to phase any one of them out to make space for a remaining species. If it's for the sake of maintaining a collection and maximizing the amount of space available for any amount of species, then overhead trails and rotational exhibits make the most amount of sense. Even something like Zoo Knoxville's Gibbon Trails and Langur Landing has overhead trails, but as that exhibit is on a hill, the designers wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to showcase the aerial prowess of silvery lutungs and white-handed gibbons. That said, I do feel there is a monotony in the way these overhead trails are designed, like it's the same oval support frames, the same galvanized metal flooring, the same "hoops" and the same mesh trail strung on a steel cable. I do get that for recent Zoo360-style exhibits, that's because it's all the same firm, CLR Design, doing those trails. But there should be some level of innovation that would break the norm. Houston's overhead passage for their jaguar breaks the norm by having a replicated ceiba tree that just so happens to have the mesh lie in a perfect way so Tesoro doesn't escape. It's this kind of innovation that needs to be prevalent in exhibit design, if increasingly dime-a-dozen ideas like overhead trails are going to be utilized in zoos across the country and even across the world. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but overexposure leads to a want for novelty.
 
StoppableSan said:
While I still have exhibit design fresh in my mind, I think Zoo360 style "overhead trails" are a genius idea for zoos to give more space for their animals, but they shouldn't be there *just for being there*. Philadelphia's justification for inventing Zoo360 was ingenious, in the sense that the animals that they had in previously static exhibits could explore beyond their initial territory, and they have the choice to explore and rotate. (And I feel that this concept can work for certain species that Philadelphia used to have, but I've ranted and raved about it for long enough, IYKYK.) Saint Louis' Primate Canopy Trails is a genius way of having spacious outdoor habitats for all of their species, without having to phase any one of them out to make space for a remaining species. If it's for the sake of maintaining a collection and maximizing the amount of space available for any amount of species, then overhead trails and rotational exhibits make the most amount of sense. Even something like Zoo Knoxville's Gibbon Trails and Langur Landing has overhead trails, but as that exhibit is on a hill, the designers wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to showcase the aerial prowess of silvery lutungs and white-handed gibbons. That said, I do feel there is a monotony in the way these overhead trails are designed, like it's the same oval support frames, the same galvanized metal flooring, the same "hoops" and the same mesh trail strung on a steel cable. I do get that for recent Zoo360-style exhibits, that's because it's all the same firm, CLR Design, doing those trails. But there should be some level of innovation that would break the norm. Houston's overhead passage for their jaguar breaks the norm by having a replicated ceiba tree that just so happens to have the mesh lie in a perfect way so Tesoro doesn't escape. It's this kind of innovation that needs to be prevalent in exhibit design, if increasingly dime-a-dozen ideas like overhead trails are going to be utilized in zoos across the country and even across the world. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but overexposure leads to a want for novelty.
Click to expand...

Sometimes designs are similar because that's what *works*. If it's the safest, most cost effective, easiest to clean, etc., why mess with it much? Adding design to it like Houston did is nice, but it costs more money, both in the designing phase and in the implementation. When projects go over budget (and they always do), it's stuff like that that gets cut, because it's not a vital element.
I've said this before, but it's worth saying again here - we are among a very, very small minority of people who go to zoos. Most people go to their local one, maybe a bigger one in the city if their local one is small, maybe check out one on vacation. They don't know that Philly, St Louis, and Knoxville all have similar-looking 360 exhibits, they just think it's really awesome that they can see the animals using them.
 
1. Elephants, Common Hippos, and White Rhinos are extremely overrated.

2. I see zero reason for zoos to house domestic animals of any kind, including “rare” breeds. All purebreds were created by selective breeding, which usually does the exact opposite of increasing genetic diversity, despite what the conservation-minded zoos would like to think. (I would think that outcrossing is always better overall.) Additionally, livestock conservancies take care of those matters on their own anyway. This doesn’t seem like a situation zoos should handle.
 
Birdsage said:
2. I see zero reason for zoos to house domestic animals of any kind, including “rare” breeds. All purebreds were created by selective breeding, which usually does the exact opposite of increasing genetic diversity, despite what the conservation-minded zoos would like to think. (I would think that outcrossing is always better overall.) Additionally, livestock conservancies take care of those matters on their own anyway. This doesn’t seem like a situation zoos should handle.
Click to expand...

There are a few obvious reasons:

1. Domestic animals still offer a lot of education value about agriculture, evolution, and animal husbandry. Some zoos do this better than others, of course.
2. More obviously, they tend to be oriented towards young children. Like it or not, the average 4 year-old is going to get more out of being able to touch a goat or donkey than they would out of walking through a jungle aviary.
 
You do raise some good points in #1 regarding the teaching of evolution (specifically artificial selection), and animal care.
Of course, the point raised in #2 is a cold, hard truth I must acknowledge, despite the fact that I knew of the pangolins and tinamous at 7. I guess the only way to change that for the next generation would be if 8 more “Lesser Spotted Animals” books were to be published, featuring some non-mammals.
 
Last edited:
Placement of playgrounds is critical:

As a parent, I can honestly say there’s nothing worse than a zoo with a playground at the start. The kids want to go on it while the actual zoo is becoming more and more crowded; and then they spend the whole trip around the zoo asking when we’re gonna go back to it.

Even parents who aren’t all that interested in zoos are wondering why they just spent x amount of money on visiting a zoo, when all their kid wanted to do was go on some play equipment.

I’m sure ZooChatters with kids or younger siblings can relate.

A smart idea is to put the playground in the middle of the zoo. While the kids play on the playground, the parents are happy to chill, eat, go through the photos they’ve taken for ZooChat etc. Then everyone continues on their way happy as a clam.
 
Although, to be fair, we probably wouldn’t want impressionable younglings thinking that “zoolesserspottedology”, which is mentioned in the glossary of the first book, (among some incorrect definitions, like “venomous” as a synonym for “poisonous”) is an actual word. At least the IUCN conservation statuses and the word “psammophilic” are defined.
 
Birdsage said:
I see zero reason for zoos to house domestic animals of any kind, including “rare” breeds. All purebreds were created by selective breeding, which usually does the exact opposite of increasing genetic diversity, despite what the conservation-minded zoos would like to think. (I would think that outcrossing is always better overall.) Additionally, livestock conservancies take care of those matters on their own anyway. This doesn’t seem like a situation zoos should handle.
Click to expand...

Antimony96 said:
There are a few obvious reasons:

1. Domestic animals still offer a lot of education value about agriculture, evolution, and animal husbandry. Some zoos do this better than others, of course.
2. More obviously, they tend to be oriented towards young children. Like it or not, the average 4 year-old is going to get more out of being able to touch a goat or donkey than they would out of walking through a jungle aviary.
Click to expand...

Both your points are valid @Antimony96, but the average child under five (and most adults) completely miss the message the zoo is trying to convey re. evolution and agriculture. It’s all there if anyone wants to read it and it sounds even better when it’s dressed up in the zoo’s annual report; but in practice, the kids faff around in the petting zoo, while the parents are on their phones.

We have domestic animals in New Zealand zoos. Hamilton Zoo was rife with them up until recently. They’re used as filler species when the zoo hasn’t got anything better to put in an empty exhibit and the parents are left wondering why they’ve paid to come to a zoo, when their kids can see half the exhibits for free on Grandpa’s farm.
 
Zoofan15 said:
Placement of playgrounds is critical:

As a parent, I can honestly say there’s nothing worse than a zoo with a playground at the start. The kids want to go on it while the actual zoo is becoming more and more crowded; and then they spend the whole trip around the zoo asking when we’re gonna go back to it.

Even parents who aren’t all that interested in zoos are wondering why they just spent x amount of money on visiting a zoo, when all their kid wanted to do was go on some play equipment.

I’m sure ZooChatters with kids or younger siblings can relate.

A smart idea is to put the playground in the middle of the zoo. While the kids play on the playground, the parents are happy to chill, eat, go through the photos they’ve taken for ZooChat etc. Then everyone continues on their way happy as a clam.
Click to expand...
To add to this including animal exhibits in playgrounds or next to them is a great way to get kids to better connect with animals.
 
Domestic animals also give kids something to pet, which is a great way for kids to make a connection with the animals. Some zoos let you brush them as well, sometimes for a fee, and it's always a popular activity. Being hands-on helps create connections and memories. Don't forget, a lot of kids haven't met domestics, either! Especially city kids. Goats and cows can be just as exciting to them. It also is an activity that's easy to repeat, bringing people back (and bringing in money). Seeing the same sleeping animals can be pretty boring for a kid, but want to go brush the sheep again and feed the pony? Heck yes.

Domestic vs native/exotic isn't an either/or situation. Kids (and adults who previously had little interest/knowledge) can be interested in both, and liking the cute goats can bring about an interest in wild species. Signage isn't just directed at kids, either. The parents that hopefully read them can learn things, too.

I'm not a kid person but I always try to talk to kids that seem interested at zoos, especially if their parents don't seem to care (and I thank the parents that do). For every couple of annoying, screaming children, there's one who is genuinely interested and is learning, and is eager to hear more.
 
Westcoastperson said:
To add to this including animal exhibits in playgrounds or next to them is a great way to get kids to better connect with animals.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Wellington Zoo does this really well with things like transport crates the kids can walk into. They’re passing things that grab the kid’s attention without them spending any length of time on, while teaching the kid something in the process.
 
I think more zoos should add natural history museums to their campuses to teach visitors more about prehistoric animals, and not just dinosaurs, either. Considering over 99% of species that ever existed are now extinct, I’d say it would make sense to teach visitors about them to give a more totalizing portrait of the animal kingdom, and not just showcasing extant animal species.
 
I'm ok with farm animals (Including cats and dogs, but not for exhibit purpose but for interactions like those cat/dog houses/restaurants), but honestly I don't like morp or hybrid animals in zoos or aquariums. I also don't like to see deformed animals on display, that's just awful for me.
 
Birdsage said:
All purebreds were created by selective breeding, which usually does the exact opposite of increasing genetic diversity, despite what the conservation-minded zoos would like to think. (I would think that outcrossing is always better overall.
Click to expand...

If you think "outcrossing" is always the better option you know little about animal breeding and the reasons why rare or old breeds are actually conserved.

The genetic diversity aspect that is talked about when it comes to conserving rare breeds is not within-breed diversity but between-breed diversity. Different breeds have different traits that make them useful is particular circumstances, and preserving old and rare breeds gives us the opportunity to maintain those traits and use them when needed. Modern Holstein-Friesian cattle is extremely popular now because they are highly productive in the dairy industry, but they require lots of high-quality feed to be that productive and cannot stay outdoor year-round. This makes them excel in the highly intensive milk production, but useless in other situations, such as nature conservation grazing. Mix everything up and you lose the opportunity to choose a fitting breed for a given situation. There are plenty of examples where old breeds gained new functions (look up, for example, Bentheimer pigs). Other than that, preserving old breeds is also a question of conserving cultural heritage.

If you ask me, zoos should put more effort into domestics, not less. That's my hot take!
 
Columbus Zoo is underrated. In my two visits in 2014 and 2018, they were possibly the best zoo experiences I ever had. They have every major zoo animal you can think of (with a few exceptions) along with plenty of rarities. They go all out with theming in their exhibits and Heart of Africa and Asia Quest are my two favorite zoo exhibits. They've had incredible breeding success with gorillas and wolves. They're one of two zoos outside of Florida that take in injured manatees, but clearly, the best part for me was seeing elephants for the first time in my life. There are more reasons, but I believe Columbus matches San Diego and Bronx in terms of being Americas, and possibly one of the best zoos in the world.
 
Pandamich said:
Columbus Zoo is underrated. In my two visits in 2014 and 2018, they were possibly the best zoo experiences I ever had. They have every major zoo animal you can think of (with a few exceptions) along with plenty of rarities. They go all out with theming in their exhibits and Heart of Africa and Asia Quest are my two favorite zoo exhibits. They've had incredible breeding success with gorillas and wolves. They're one of two zoos outside of Florida that take in injured manatees, but clearly, the best part for me was seeing elephants for the first time in my life. There are more reasons, but I believe Columbus matches San Diego and Bronx in terms of being Americas, and possibly one of the best zoos in the world.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree that Columbus is awesome, but at least from what I can tell, it’s not like this commonly goes unrecognized.
 
evilmonkey239 said:
I don’t disagree that Columbus is awesome, but at least from what I can tell, it’s not like this commonly goes unrecognized.
Click to expand...
Ture, it's probably because of the childlike wonder I experienced when I first visited, and I probably won't have another zoo trip like it again. I basically saw many animals I never saw before so I think that plays into my bias a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top