Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

[ifesbob]

It was not a top 5 list, though. It was a ranking of 'all the zoos in the country', and furthermore- some zoos that the maker had not even visited, which would make the 'personal experience' aspect of the ranking (not that there seemed to be one), questionable.

It literally was asked what her top 5 zoos in the country were, though. And "things you've read/watched/whatever" is part of "personal experience".

To me, it seemed like you were implying she did not know enough to be able to create any ranking, or that what she thought about some zoos was less valid simply because of what it was based on, even though it's an opinion and no opinion can be "better" than any other. I could say better researched opinions are "better", which I do sort of believe, or at least, they have more value in a discussion when you're discussing something, but still, I don't get why someone has to know a certain amount about something before they can have an opinion on it.

 

[ZoologicallyDepraved]

If we're throwing reptiles under the bus for inactivity, how about we criticize big cats and koalas for it too? Just saying.

Also reminded of a chuckwalla that went absolutely batty whenever he saw his food bowl coming.

Ah, but big cats and koalas usually don't have rows after rows of exhibits dedicated to them. In the typical modern zoo, at least.

 

[TinoPup]

Ah, but big cats and koalas usually don't have rows after rows of exhibits dedicated to them. In the typical modern zoo, at least.

No, they have large expanses of no animals at all in between.

 

[ZoologicallyDepraved]

No, there isn’t- and nowhere did I remotely imply that there was to be an ideal way to rank zoos. It’s clear from ZDP’s posts that she had her particular reasons for why she ranked the way she did. And while those reasons may be important to her- which is fine, we all value different things in different ways- it was apparent to me that those rankings were based off of very limited insight. And while, yes, I’m not in her mind, and I don’t know what knowledge she had, what was available to me on the forum was lacking, and was worth the scrutiny (for lack of a better word). After all, if one of the major criterion for a good ranking was contribution towards conservation, then why wouldn’t Bronx dominate that list? And more than that, if welfare were a big consideration, wouldn’t San Diego be ranked above Brookfield, since it is widely considered to have better welfare than the latter?

Opinion is opinion, yes. And we are all entitled to our opinions, yes. But we must also be able to create well-founded arguments in which we can argue for when asked upon, this is a discussion forum, after all? And it is a hot take thread, too, so it is even more a conversation for altering viewpoints and questions to come across. The way that I’ve seen ZooChat function for the years I’ve been around- it’s not just an empty void where we can dump our thoughts and/or poorly supported arguments and not expect any response. If that’s what you’re looking for, I’m sure the junkyards of Twitter and Reddit would be better suited towards your interests. But we’re not here for that, so while I agree and welcome everyone to share their opinions- let’s not do so in a way that we just don’t expect any questions or opposition when we say things that may scratch the heads of others.

Yes, my insight is very limited. Something that perhaps sets me apart from other ZooChatters is I don't visit more than 2 zoos a year due to lack of opportunities. Nor do I have the time to research hundreds of facilities to know everything about them. There was nothing when I signed up stating I had to be the biggest zoo expert there is to be a part of the forum. Perhaps I won't integrate into the community, but I am here to learn more about something that interests me. I simply want to explore a broad topic through discussions. I do not come to this site with great amounts of previous knowledge, I come to gain more.

 

[TinoPup]

Yes, my insight is very limited. Something that perhaps sets me apart from other ZooChatters is I don't visit more than 2 zoos a year due to lack of opportunities. Nor do I have the time to research hundreds of facilities to know everything about them. There was nothing when I signed up stating I had to be the biggest zoo expert there is to be a part of the forum. Perhaps I won't integrate into the community, but I am here to learn more about something that interests me. I simply want to explore a broad topic through discussions. I do not come to this site with great amounts of previous knowledge, I come to gain more.

It's good that you want to learn more, but it's odd that you're saying all of this and yet your very first post was in this thread.

 

[ZooBinh]

It literally was asked what her top 5 zoos in the country were, though. And "things you've read/watched/whatever" is part of "personal experience".

You're correct- I conveyed the first portion of my post wrong earlier. Yes, it was asked of her what her top five zoos in the country were. But I did not interpret that as an 'personal favorite top 5', kind of question, in which yes, personal experiences would more than absolutely be enough to answer that question. And whether or not it was intended to be so, whoever asked that question is more than welcome to clarify. It seemed to be that the question was to just pick, in her view, what the top five zoos in the nation were (which also seemed to be how she claimed to answer the question). And with the seemingly limited base of 'personal experience' that ZDP had to answer that question, that wouldn't be a really valid standing to answer that question (and beyond that, why would we be asking what people's 5 favorite zoos are on a thread about hot takes...).

If an opinion is poorly based, yes, it is going to be objectively weaker than one that is researched. If an opinion is based off of arbitrary feelings, then yes, its going to be one that will not stand up as well in argument as one that is researched. But I don't think it's necessary to dwell on whether we think all opinions are created equal or not, as that would distract from the thread more than our little discourse has already.

 

[ZoologicallyDepraved]

It's good that you want to learn more, but it's odd that you're saying all of this and yet your very first post was in this thread.

I posted here as an attempt to get to know the community, test the water. Perhaps it wasn't the smartest way to start out with what I wanted to achieve by joining, but I'm glad I got to learn more about how this community functions.

 

[ZooBinh]

Yes, my insight is very limited. Something that perhaps sets me apart from other ZooChatters is I don't visit more than 2 zoos a year due to lack of opportunities. Nor do I have the time to research hundreds of facilities to know everything about them. There was nothing when I signed up stating I had to be the biggest zoo expert there is to be a part of the forum. Perhaps I won't integrate into the community, but I am here to learn more about something that interests me. I simply want to explore a broad topic through discussions. I do not come to this site with great amounts of previous knowledge, I come to gain more.

And that's totally fine. When I came to this forum a few years ago, I also knew next to nothing and came to learn more. And of course, we're all welcoming to new members who want to learn more!

But might I suggest to you, while you're still learning the ropes around here, to first assimilate to the style and the manner in which discussion goes on around here (which isn't really hard to do, I can't describe it in any other way really than a bunch of zoo nerds sharing zoo information ), but to then comment and even argue only when you are confident that what you are saying is well-communicated and clear, and not something that can be easily picked apart. In other words, to make sure posts aren't just instinctual reactions but rather well-thought out. It's something that I personally have and still am working on- and it leaves me out of many discussions that I may not be informed enough to take part in. We have had (myself included) many young, new members who have joined and been overenthusiastic and just spew things out here and there...and not have anything substantial to say...It's good at times to sit on the sidelines and just take in the information.

Nevertheless, I'm sure it's been a rough first day on the forum for you, but I hope you'll stick around. Just take some time to explore, look around, and get used to the way things are around here. Welcome to the forum and I hope I'll see you around .

 

[ZoologicallyDepraved]

And that's totally fine. When I came to this forum a few years ago, I also knew next to nothing and came to learn more. And of course, we're all welcoming to new members who want to learn more!

But might I suggest to you, while you're still learning the ropes around here, to first assimilate to the style and the manner in which discussion goes on around here (which isn't really hard to do, I can't describe it in any other way really than a bunch of zoo nerds sharing zoo information ), but to then comment and even argue only when you are confident that what you are saying is well-communicated and clear, and not something that can be easily picked apart. In other words, to make sure posts aren't just instinctual reactions but rather well-thought out. It's something that I personally have and still am working on- and it leaves me out of many discussions that I may not be informed enough to take part in. We have had (myself included) many young, new members who have joined and been overenthusiastic and just spew things out here and there...and not have anything substantial to say...It's good at times to sit on the sidelines and just take in the information.

Nevertheless, I'm sure it's been a rough first day on the forum for you, but I hope you'll stick around. Just take some time to explore, look around, and get used to the way things are around here. Welcome to the forum and I hope I'll see you around .

Thank you for the suggestion. I actually learned quite a lot from this first day. Definitely planning to stick around, because there's a LOT of information to take in. I'll make sure to take it slow and pay attention to how things work around here.

 

[Lafone]

Yes- I myself have seen it categorized that way. Just not here. I do wildlife photography. It does seem the way I came across was confusing. Pretty new to this forum and still adjusting to the community.

I also enjoy wildlife photography as well as photography in zoos Fun hobby.

 

[ifesbob]

You're correct- I conveyed the first portion of my post wrong earlier. Yes, it was asked of her what her top five zoos in the country were. But I did not interpret that as an 'personal favorite top 5', kind of question, in which yes, personal experiences would more than absolutely be enough to answer that question. And whether or not it was intended to be so, whoever asked that question is more than welcome to clarify. It seemed to be that the question was to just pick, in her view, what the top five zoos in the nation were (which also seemed to be how she claimed to answer the question). And with the seemingly limited base of 'personal experience' that ZDP had to answer that question, that wouldn't be a really valid standing to answer that question (and beyond that, why would we be asking what people's 5 favorite zoos are on a thread about hot takes...).

If an opinion is poorly based, yes, it is going to be objectively weaker than one that is researched. If an opinion is based off of arbitrary feelings, then yes, its going to be one that will not stand up as well in argument as one that is researched. But I don't think it's necessary to dwell on whether we think all opinions are created equal or not, as that would distract from the thread more than our little discourse has already.

The question came from the hot takes that she put out there, which were hot, and then someone wanted to know, based on her stated values, what her opinion of the top 5 zoos in the country was, which wasn't a list I personally agree with, but beyond that, it really just brings up the question of "how much does someone need to know on a topic in order to speak on it". The list was brought up by someone else, it wasn't volunteered.

I'm glad that people here will ask people to clarify and explain themselves, however, I don't think there's a requisite level of knowledge someone needs in order to participate in discussions here, or to have a "take" in the hot take thread. It doesn't mean they're correct just because it's an opinion, but especially when the conversation was brought up by someone else, they're allowed to speak on an issue.

Anyways you're right, this is off topic and I'm not going to respond on this topic further (as much as I may want to... )

 

[ifesbob]

I posted here as an attempt to get to know the community, test the water. Perhaps it wasn't the smartest way to start out with what I wanted to achieve by joining, but I'm glad I got to learn more about how this community functions.

There are certainly worse ways to test the waters than this, for what it's worth. I was relatively subdued as I learned the culture on this site. My main guiding principle as I was learning the ropes (let's be honest, I'm too new of a member myself to not still be learning them...) was "does this add value", which is one of the fundamental principles of this site. And you did add value! Perhaps not the best starting thread, but it's fine, I think.

 

[PossumRoach]

- Hemsley Conservation Centre Is A Good Zoo: One of the best collections of rarities in the UK is often criticised for its low standard of exhibitry, but when I finally made it there, mainly to see the Aardwolf, I was decently impressed. The open-topped Kinkajou enclosure was great, the callitrichid enclosures were pleasant and the Tayra enclosure was far larger than many others which I had seen. The only two genuinely bad habitats were those for the Rusty-spotted Cats, which the zoo has stated is only temporary, and the Brazilian Tapir and Capybara enclosure, which for the small number of species it displays (one tapir and one capybara, I believe) isn't even that small. Couple that with all the rarities mentioned earlier, and you have one of the best small zoos in the country.

I am not too well versed with Hemsley and its flaws as much as people who previously seen it and discussed about it but if I recall correctly, it is the actions the zoo made (which I can think of two) that make it controversial rather than the quality if the collection. The first being the zoo claiming to support a conservation project for buffy-headed and/or buffy-tufted marmosets while, according to one person who works for that price, they don’t. The second action was the lack of cooperation with regards to an aardwolf breeding program. Had they have been cooperative then the current aardwolf population in England could have lasted for a longer while.

If I also have to be honest the “Conservation Center” part of the sounds like an attempt at greenwashing to justify collecting rarities.

 

[JVM]

I guess this is my hot take: I don't really find 'best of' zoo lists super interesting, at least as far as the US/AZA are concerned. The same four or so zoos always dominate the top, and I've not seen any reason to question them as the best, but what discussion that does occur often seems to be more about the order of those four than the lower entries. I think it says a lot that five and below tend to vary significantly but those four rarely change unless someone is an enthusiastic advocate for a specific institution.

It helps a lot when full explanations are provided with each entry, rather than a list.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

- Hemsley Conservation Centre Is A Good Zoo: One of the best collections of rarities in the UK is often criticised for its low standard of exhibitry, but when I finally made it there, mainly to see the Aardwolf, I was decently impressed. The open-topped Kinkajou enclosure was great, the callitrichid enclosures were pleasant and the Tayra enclosure was far larger than many others which I had seen. The only two genuinely bad habitats were those for the Rusty-spotted Cats, which the zoo has stated is only temporary, and the Brazilian Tapir and Capybara enclosure, which for the small number of species it displays (one tapir and one capybara, I believe) isn't even that small. Couple that with all the rarities mentioned earlier, and you have one of the best small zoos in the country.

I am not too well versed with Hemsley and its flaws as much as people who previously seen it and discussed about it but if I recall correctly, it is the actions the zoo made (which I can think of two) that make it controversial rather than the quality if the collection. The first being the zoo claiming to support a conservation project for buffy-headed and/or buffy-tufted marmosets while, according to one person who works for that price, they don’t. The second action was the lack of cooperation with regards to an aardwolf breeding program. Had they have been cooperative then the current aardwolf population in England could have lasted for a longer while.

If I also have to be honest the “Conservation Center” part of the sounds like an attempt at greenwashing to justify collecting rarities.

IMO a zoo really can't be considered that great if it's claiming to be donating all this money to a conservation organization that's never received a dime from them...

Rare species are great, but it also matters what you do with them. At Hemsley, many of them seen to sort of.. disappear, or die from "accidental choking" while eating foods the species can't actually eat in the first place! I have been to Hemsley, and also spoken with the owner, and I've never been very impressed with the collection or how its run. It's really not a good zoo at all.

~Thylo

 

[Pleistocene891]

I guess this is my hot take: I don't really find 'best of' zoo lists super interesting, at least as far as the US/AZA are concerned. The same four or so zoos always dominate the top, and I've not seen any reason to question them as the best, but what discussion that does occur often seems to be more about the order of those four than the lower entries. I think it says a lot that five and below tend to vary significantly but those four rarely change unless someone is an enthusiastic advocate for a specific institution.

It helps a lot when full explanations are provided with each entry, rather than a list.

I think the order of those top 5 zoos get discussed so often simply because many people are familiar with those zoos and therefore have more knowledge about them that they can use in a debate. Also being the best zoo in the U.S. is a prestigious title so many people make cases for their favorite of the top 5 to be the best.

 

[JVM]

I think the order of those top 5 zoos get discussed so often simply because many people are familiar with those zoos and therefore have more knowledge about them that they can use in a debate.

I'm really discussing a "barebones" list more than an active discussion, per the last sentence at the end of my post. You can learn from a discussion. A ranked list out of context, which are posted just as often, ends up saying nothing because of the obvious top choices. Discussion is good, because I might learn things about San Diego, Omaha, St. Louis or Bronx I do not know at least!

 

[Kalaw]

I am not too well versed with Hemsley and its flaws as much as people who previously seen it and discussed about it but if I recall correctly, it is the actions the zoo made (which I can think of two) that make it controversial rather than the quality if the collection. The first being the zoo claiming to support a conservation project for buffy-headed and/or buffy-tufted marmosets while, according to one person who works for that price, they don’t. The second action was the lack of cooperation with regards to an aardwolf breeding program. Had they have been cooperative then the current aardwolf population in England could have lasted for a longer while.

If I also have to be honest the “Conservation Center” part of the sounds like an attempt at greenwashing to justify collecting rarities.

IMO a zoo really can't be considered that great if it's claiming to be donating all this money to a conservation organization that's never received a dime from them...

Rare species are great, but it also matters what you do with them. At Hemsley, many of them seen to sort of.. disappear, or die from "accidental choking" while eating foods the species can't actually eat in the first place! I have been to Hemsley, and also spoken with the owner, and I've never been very impressed with the collection or how its run. It's really not a good zoo at all.

~Thylo

Well, all this does seem quite bad! I should have researched the zoo a little better even after my visit before jumping to such a positive conclusion. Thank you for bringing this to my attention!

 

[StoppableSan]

Hot take: Hyper-theming isn't bad, and even when it's flawed from the start, there is a level of beauty when it comes to even the most flawed "themed" exhibits. I'm mainly referring to stuff like SeaWorld Orlando's Wild Arctic section - the themework on stuff like the ice and snow along with the "research base" theming is genuinely immaculate, even if the enclosures are small (ESPECIALLY so for the polar bear, thankfully replaced by harbor seals). I also think that these exhibits should actually be a model for how to keep animals like polar bears and colder-climate pinnipeds inside, ON THE CONDITION that there are larger outdoor enclosures/multiple animal groups are rotated in and out. Honestly, if there was a polar bear exhibit where the outdoor space was modeled after Hannover, North Carolina or Columbus and the indoor space was modeled after SeaWorld Orlando, that'd be my ideal polar bear exhibit - pack ice is just as important an ecosystem to showcase as coastal/taiga ecosystems.

The ideal "zoo" to me would highlight as many schools of design as possible, with exhibits that transition from the past to the future seamlessly. Pretty much any exhibit in Philly showcases this, as do the WCS parks.

 

[Batto]

Hot take: Hyper-theming isn't bad, and even when it's flawed from the start, there is a level of beauty when it comes to even the most flawed "themed" exhibits.

As soon as it goes against the wellbeing and welfare of the animals kept within the exhibit, said "beauty" goes out of the window.

The ideal "zoo" to me would highlight as many schools of design as possible

Sounds more like a hot mess to me...