I am not familiar with that term, can you enlighten me? From context I assume some sort of brown bear?
Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
Corangurilla
Well-Known Member
Correct
Thank you....what islands are these talking about?
Corangurilla
Well-Known Member
Admiralty, Baranof, Chicagof. Hence “ABC islands”.
Perfect, thanks!
Pleistocene891
Well-Known Member
I want both, although I do think I prefer homogenization. Not seeing certain ABC species at zoos like lions, elephants, and gorillas just feels strange.
The zoos I visit most often lack both elephants and gorillas, so I don't find it odd at all. They actually don't have hippos, rhinos, bears, or tigers either.
Yeah, really no zoo, barring the absolute largest of zoos, needs to have ALL of the classic ABC species. Really, out of lions, Tigers, bears, elephants, giraffes, hippos, rhinos, and great apes, an ideal zoo would have some, but not all of the species.The zoos I visit most often lack both elephants and gorillas, so I don't find it odd at all. They actually don't have hippos, rhinos, bears, or tigers either.
If it's a small zoo (<20 acres), 1-2 of the ABC species should suffice and then fill the collection with smaller popular species (meerkats, Otters, red pandas, leopard/snow Leopard, smaller Primates, penguins, etc.) and some birds/reptiles/unique mammals, etc. to fill out the collection.
If it's a medium size Zoo (20-50 acres), 3-4 of those species would be ideal. Then add a few hoofstock, smaller popular species, and other species to fill out the collection.
Over 50 acres, then perhaps it'd make more sense to see 5-6 of the species, but unless a zoo is 100 acres plus, I don't see any need for a zoo to sacrifice the collection's overall "fullness" in order to house a handful of popular species with extensive needs (space, food, etc.)
Furthermore, its worth considering how long visitors take at a zoo, as this is often what makes an exhibit more enjoyable/seem more worth the cost. I think for most people, a larger collection, with some smaller, active species, is going to lead to a longer, more fulfilling visit, then one in which there are only a few, popular species (especially when large carnivores aren't exactly active species that people view for long amounts of time).
There is a quote from Jim Breheny that I really like, which I think captures the idea of how to display ABC species very well:
“Our exhibits at the Bronx Zoo don’t just exhibit one species—they exhibit species that would be found naturally together in the wild. Congo is basically a 6-acre exhibit that focuses on the species that live in the central African rainforest. The Congo Gorilla Forest features gorillas as the anchor species, but because it’s really a slice of the rainforest, we show other species that occupy that same habitat with the gorillas”
I really like this model, of giving each zoo complex a key ABC anchor species that will draw guests in-- Then, while the guests are there, the zoo can also use that opportunity to introduce them to new interesting species they may not have heard of, or to teach them more about conservation or the broader ecosystem as a whole.
“Our exhibits at the Bronx Zoo don’t just exhibit one species—they exhibit species that would be found naturally together in the wild. Congo is basically a 6-acre exhibit that focuses on the species that live in the central African rainforest. The Congo Gorilla Forest features gorillas as the anchor species, but because it’s really a slice of the rainforest, we show other species that occupy that same habitat with the gorillas”
I really like this model, of giving each zoo complex a key ABC anchor species that will draw guests in-- Then, while the guests are there, the zoo can also use that opportunity to introduce them to new interesting species they may not have heard of, or to teach them more about conservation or the broader ecosystem as a whole.
This is precisely what Sacramento (14 acres) does. Currently they have three of the listed ABCs- lions, giraffes, and orangs/chimps. Then all the smaller popular species listed are present except penguins. Rounded out with Okapis, tortoises, crocodilians, pelicans, and some others.
This is how it should be done ideally.
It's unfortunate that some zoos have stepped back to draw focus exclusively to anchor species and dropped the supporting habitat animals. I think this has damaged a lot of our expectations that it feels harder to trust a renovation that includes a big species will remember to include the little guys. I think this seems especially rough when renovations are outdoor-only.
It's not that "ideally", as @JVM put it, if this results in the lesser known species being treated as replaceable ornamental padding, whose needs have to stand back for the sake of "the greater good".
Great minds think alike.
I agree with you more than it may seem. The main contrast in my mind has been between large complexes with a single focus species only vs. complexes with an anchor and additional species, and I find the latter ideal to the former approach, especially as I feel local facilities have mostly favored the former approach recently. You are correct that focusing on anchors often leads to lesser-known species being treated this way.
Here's another I just thought of and again not sure how much of a hot take this is, but I don't care for indoor ape habitats and I'm eh with up-close glass viewing (depending on species), and here's why. I just don't care for the look of many indoor ape exhibits, with Birmingham's orangutan one being the worst I've seen, but even some better ones like some indoor gorilla areas I don't care for. The main reason I don't like them much is that it's easy for pictures of these habitats to be used as anti-zoo propaganda. I've seen some anti-zoo posts on social media featuring pictures of these indoor habitats, as well as an outdoor glass viewing where the animal is at the"right" angle and the habitat can look like a miserable cage and that an animal up on or near the glass looks "sad." One I've seen was a child looking through a glass bubble and a gorilla sitting next to it looking at the ground, with the caption and description going on an anti-zoo rant. I also remember seeing Zoo Miami post a picture of one of their black bears resting against the glass, and the comments were all saying how depressed the bear looked.
I understand no matter how amazing a habitat in a zoo looks, anti-zoo people will always hate these places, but I just feel indoor habitats or a certain angle of an animal resting against or near glass can look a certain way and helps fuel this hate, and often times gets the anti-zoo people the reaction they want from commenters or alike.
I understand no matter how amazing a habitat in a zoo looks, anti-zoo people will always hate these places, but I just feel indoor habitats or a certain angle of an animal resting against or near glass can look a certain way and helps fuel this hate, and often times gets the anti-zoo people the reaction they want from commenters or alike.
I would go even further. No zoo needs "most" of the ABCs.
If there is one zoo trend that I thoroughly disagree with, it is that in an effort to lower the number of species, zoos double down on large ABCs. It is a seemingly local step, but I am convinced it is a wrong one. "Shrinking down a collection" should be as much shrinking down the average size (or at least spatial needs) of the animals kept as it is about the number of species kept. At one point a zoo loses too much diversity and retains too few species to hold attention for long. Poison arrow frogs, weaver birds, coatis and other side-attractions are essential. They add variety, colour, and sound, and their housing and upkeep often costs a pittance compared to a great ape or elephant. Many are endangered or offer fantastic educational opportunities. And if properly displayed they can be a highlight for visitors.
Zoos that turn a blind eye toward anything but ABCs are, in the end, all the lesser for it.
What form of exhibitry do you think avoids best this kind of response? I'm racking my brain trying to think.
I feel like defining what counts as ABC species here already is a hot take on it self.
I just read about someone calling penguins, crocodilians, pelicans, meerkats, otters, leopards (incl. snow leopard), okapi and red panda not a ABC species, whilst they all are; yes okapi too nowadays.
Truthfully ABC species these days, if you ask me, is a much larger pool of species that is not just;
Elephants, ape, monkey, giraffe, zebra, antelope, snake, parrot.
It has most definitely grown in the past years. Lemurs, aardvarks, capybara, okapi, armadillos, anteaters, pangolin are all getting more known it feels like, to me, compared to the ABC of animals books I grew up 15 years back. In those books them most unique species were animals like the Yak. I notice how my friends who have no particular interest in zoos or nature also all know these animals. Why? Mostly because of interner memes or other media traction. But in the end my generation ends up getting to know these animals and possibly pass down this information onto the next generations. Creating new ABC's in the process.
I think that ABC species often just get a bad reputation on ZooChat because they are considered ABC = popular = common species. Whilst if you look at the species individually, the amounts of educational value such a species holds, the endangerment status of many ABC's, and how unique some ABC's are within the natural world. I think there is no way to say that ABC's are a bad thing. Sure you folks may prefer seeing a quirky rare mongoose instead of a meerkat or prefer bonobos over gorillas, and subspecies nerds will appreciate some oddity like a maneless zebra more then the general run of the mill plains zebra subspecies like grant's. But either species still hold much value for a zoo.
Sure ZooChatters or Zoonerds in general may not enjoy looking at gorillas again and will walk by to see some random rat species or a rare bird species. But in the end zoos probably moreso look into what the general public would like to see, or can learn from. And the ABC's are probably the best ones to do the job.
Sure people will look at a hispids cotton rat for a minute or so when they're active. But they will not remember it as a hispids cotton rats. They will just say they saw some mouse or rat at the zoo. Rare species in zoos also, at least within the Netherlands, don't feel like they get any proper length of educational material at all. They're just there being rare and pretty in their exhibits. Whilst meanwhile zoos could push to make rarer species ABC's themselves.
In the end I think there is no bad thing about ABC animals in zoos.
And people who believe that zoos ''trending'' to focus more on ABC species because they simply are enlarging habitats to meet more modern husbandry standards and strive for progressive husbandry, and then cry about it online, that's just dumb.
So my hot take is;
- Stop crybabying about ABC species
I just read about someone calling penguins, crocodilians, pelicans, meerkats, otters, leopards (incl. snow leopard), okapi and red panda not a ABC species, whilst they all are; yes okapi too nowadays.
Truthfully ABC species these days, if you ask me, is a much larger pool of species that is not just;
Elephants, ape, monkey, giraffe, zebra, antelope, snake, parrot.
It has most definitely grown in the past years. Lemurs, aardvarks, capybara, okapi, armadillos, anteaters, pangolin are all getting more known it feels like, to me, compared to the ABC of animals books I grew up 15 years back. In those books them most unique species were animals like the Yak. I notice how my friends who have no particular interest in zoos or nature also all know these animals. Why? Mostly because of interner memes or other media traction. But in the end my generation ends up getting to know these animals and possibly pass down this information onto the next generations. Creating new ABC's in the process.
I think that ABC species often just get a bad reputation on ZooChat because they are considered ABC = popular = common species. Whilst if you look at the species individually, the amounts of educational value such a species holds, the endangerment status of many ABC's, and how unique some ABC's are within the natural world. I think there is no way to say that ABC's are a bad thing. Sure you folks may prefer seeing a quirky rare mongoose instead of a meerkat or prefer bonobos over gorillas, and subspecies nerds will appreciate some oddity like a maneless zebra more then the general run of the mill plains zebra subspecies like grant's. But either species still hold much value for a zoo.
Sure ZooChatters or Zoonerds in general may not enjoy looking at gorillas again and will walk by to see some random rat species or a rare bird species. But in the end zoos probably moreso look into what the general public would like to see, or can learn from. And the ABC's are probably the best ones to do the job.
Sure people will look at a hispids cotton rat for a minute or so when they're active. But they will not remember it as a hispids cotton rats. They will just say they saw some mouse or rat at the zoo. Rare species in zoos also, at least within the Netherlands, don't feel like they get any proper length of educational material at all. They're just there being rare and pretty in their exhibits. Whilst meanwhile zoos could push to make rarer species ABC's themselves.
In the end I think there is no bad thing about ABC animals in zoos.
And people who believe that zoos ''trending'' to focus more on ABC species because they simply are enlarging habitats to meet more modern husbandry standards and strive for progressive husbandry, and then cry about it online, that's just dumb.
So my hot take is;
- Stop crybabying about ABC species
Interesting take. As someone from a colder region of the country, I have to disagree though. If you have specific gorilla exhibits you'd like to criticize, fine, but I find it essential that zoos have high quality indoor exhibits for great apes when in colder regions. Granted, Ideally they'd have access to both in and outdoor areas, but in many parts of the world that isn't possible year-round. And, if a zoo is in a cold weather location, I'd rather see a good indoor exhibit, accessible year-round, than a good outdoor exhibit only accessible half the year.
Respectfully, I don't think anyone is "crybabying" about ABC species. It's more so a frustration about common, popular species being ubiquitous in zoos when the collections are overall losing biodiversity. Furthermore, while some ABC animals may be endangered, most aren't good candidates for ex-situ conservation, which has to be a strong consideration when designing collection plans and exhibits. At least personally, I think frustration over ABC animals is targeted towards large animals. While red pandas, meerkats, penguins, lemurs, etc. are all ABC species, they are smaller species that aren't taking nearly as much space away from other species as lions, tigers, and elephants. As I've mentioned before, it's worth considering the duration of zoo visits. For most people, a larger collection will yield a longer visit than a collection with only a few, large, popular species. Thus having a collection with a large, biodiverse collection, of both popular and largely unknown species, makes a zoo visit perceived as more valuable than one with only those big species.