Yes, this hot take stems from a personal preference. But I do think that more zoos and aquariums in the lower 48 should replace their California Sea Lions in favor of the larger, and arguably, more impressive Steller’s Sea Lion.
Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
RandomZooVisitorYT
Well-Known Member
As an American from the lower 48 states, I agree that Stellars Sea Lions are more impressive and well.... more stellar. However the issue is that there are a lot more California Sea Lions that end up being unreleasable. Also Stellars tend to be more aggressive and wouldn't mix with other pinnipeds and sometimes eating seals. In addition to that, it might be more dangerous for any Zoo to have a sea lion chat or show with this subspecies. Also a lot of current Sea Lions exhibits may be too small to house a decent amount of these larger animals. Cali Sea Lion males are around 8 feet long and get to 600-1,000 lbs but Stellar males can get to be 13 feet and weight up to 1.5 tons
RandomZooVisitorYT
Well-Known Member
Quick opinion, which zoos (other than Omaha and SeaWorld) have sea lion exhibits that are big enough to house Stellars Sea Lions (assuming the species were swapped out)
CMTM
Well-Known Member
Oregon Zoo formerly displayed two adult males in "Stellar Cove" along with a juvenile female Northern Elephant Seal.
Mystic Aquarium currently displays at least two females I believe.
Alaska Sealife Center has at least one adult male on display.
BlobfishBoy
Well-Known Member
Perhaps Stellar’s sea lions could serve as a replacement for facilities that want to be new holders for walruses but can’t due to the small population (NC zoo comes to mind).
Sorry to pop that zoofan bubble, but: The majority of major zoos, especially with economically thinking zoo managers eh directors that could afford Steller's sea lions are unlikely to get them. Why should they? They already have the Californian sea lion that is both very popular among Joe Shmoe zoo visitors and quite easily available. Why should they get a larger, more aggressive, cost - and maintainance - intensive, non-endangered sea lion?
Tapirus Lar
Well-Known Member
Well, they are listed as vulnerable by NatureServe
Cool beans, but per the IUCN they still aren’t globally endangered and still would require a lot of resources only for the average Tom, Rick, and Stanley to call them seals.
And as a Non-American, I have bad news for you and your wordplay: the common name for Eumetopias jubatus is Steller (or Steller's) sea lion, not "Stellars" sea lion, named for the German naturalist Georg Wilhelm Steller. Just as the Steller's sea eagle, Steller's eider, Steller's jay, Steller's sculpin or the extinct Steller's sea cow.
Furthermore, the Steller sea lion is not a subspecies, but its own monotypic genus Eumetopias, wheras the Californian sea lion is categorized as part of the Zalopus genus.
I've seen the Steller's sea lions at Mystic Aquarium on a number of occasions, and honestly I don't think they offer much as exhibit animals that California sea lions don't. While yes, Steller's sea lions are bigger, which gives them some degree of impressiveness, it's not like a male California sea lion is small by any means either. Furthermore, I've almost never seen a California sea lion exhibit where the sea lions aren't being active and engaging exhibit animals, while the Steller's sea lions at Mystic Aquarium are oftentimes rather inactive.
While I can get behind the idea of downsizing the populations of extremely common zoo animals (including California sea lions and harbor seals), in order to make room for a wider diversity of managed species, I'd rather see a larger Northern fur seal population over a Steller's sea lion one.
Space is indeed a very limiting factor. Other than more specialty type zoos (only reptiles or birds etc) I would think the minimum amount of desired space for a full fledged zoo would be a minimum of 100 acres (40.4 hectares) and even then I would really think twice that would be closer to the mark. Lots of that size are not common in urban areas and would cost a pretty penny.
On top of that there are really only three metropolitan areas in the US that lack a full fledged zoo
1) the Inland Empire (which nobody thinks about as a metro area) but it has both LA and San Diego within reasonable distance
2) Charlotte North Carolina -which has North Carolina and Riverbanks within a 90 mile drive
3) Las Vegas- which has been in a sports expansion mode for the last 20 odd years
and which for a variety of reasons seems to have very little interest in a proper zoo.
AS well as we Americans are largely a stupid bunch and would happily shell out a billion and a half dollar football stadium that would be a financial drain to taxpayers to support the billionaire
owners but would recoil in horror at the thought of spending that on a new zoo.
.
Lots of "full fledged zoos" are less than 100 acres, not counting the fact there are plenty of charming small zoos the following all report their sizes as less than 100 acres:
- Woodland Park Zoo- 92 acres
- Cincinnati Zoo- 75 acres
- Franklin Park Zoo- 70 acres
- Indianapolis Zoo- 64 acres
- Oregon Zoo- 64 acres
- Zoo Tampa- 63 acres
- Houston Zoo- 55 acres
- Virginia Zoo- 53 acres
- Toledo Zoo- 51 acres
- Rosamond Gifford Zoo- 43 acres
- Philadelphia Zoo- 42 acres
- Roger Williams Park Zoo- 40 acres
- Lincoln Park Zoo- 35 acres
- Buffalo Zoo- 25 acres
More space obviously gives additional flexibility and allows for a larger collection, but saying zoos need to be 100 acres to be "full fledged" is something I'd strongly disagree with, as many excellent zoos are much smaller than that. Even the San Diego Zoo is "only" 100 acres.
Kalaw
Well-Known Member
As well as the examples named by @Neil chace , there are Vienna, Zurich, Zoo Berlin, Leipzig, Beauval and Singapore, all of which are considered by some enthusiasts to be contenders for the title of ‘best zoo in the world,’ are under 100 acres. I think you are massively underwater how big 100 acres is, as there are many world-class and certainly full-fledged zoos that are under it.
What even is a "fully-fledged zoo" supposed to be? What is the difference between one fully-fledged and one partially-fledged?
My point was not that a less than 100 acre zoo is bad . My point is that if you were going to open a new one, that is what you would think of. I guarantee that if you asked every one of those zoos if they wished they had more land, the answer would be yes for probably all of them.
Of course you can have an outstanding zoo on less, but would you dream of one?
In my mind fully fledged would have a good assortment of birds , herps , some fish at least, some invertebrates at least and mammals. In America (at least) if you don't have at least one ape, a few big cats, probably a bear or more, giraffe, zebra, hippo and a smattering of ungulates ,and think long and hard about elephants-you would be missing your target audience (unless you are going specialty or regional species).
I wasn't trying to be a snobby elitist, but more of a dreamer.
Of course you can have an outstanding zoo on less, but would you dream of one?
In my mind fully fledged would have a good assortment of birds , herps , some fish at least, some invertebrates at least and mammals. In America (at least) if you don't have at least one ape, a few big cats, probably a bear or more, giraffe, zebra, hippo and a smattering of ungulates ,and think long and hard about elephants-you would be missing your target audience (unless you are going specialty or regional species).
I wasn't trying to be a snobby elitist, but more of a dreamer.
Actually, yes I would dream of one. Build too big of a zoo and you miss one of your target audiences: families with young children, who often struggle with walking long distances. Likewise with those who have mobility issues, are elderly, have limited time, etc., I'd much rather design a well-put together smaller zoo that has an effective, compact layout than one that is spread out over hundreds of acres.
Yeah, I don't think you are "missing your target audience" by not having all of those species. Many of the best zoos in the country are missing at least one of those species, even the Bronx Zoo, which could easily be argued as the best zoo in the US, doesn't have all those species, missing hippos. Surely the Bronx Zoo isn't "missing its target audience" by not having hippos, no?
I understand the whole point of the internet is to obtusely argue and nitpick, but I'm not gonna argue that a sloppily designed 100 acre zoo is better than a well planned smaller one
I do get what you mean -- almost no zoo has a "complete" ABC animal collection but any that aspired to that would need a massive amount of space as you describe. Many world-class 80 acre zoos have to make compromises, which isn't a criticism to those facilities, it happens, but correlate that with how animal welfare studies continue to suggest more and more space for each species to improve welfare, suggesting the current trends may continue indefinitely - lack of space, lack of money. The result is animals are in competition for the limited space available and we're running out of room. It's totally necessary but it's a sad thought. I've come to advocate for a number of phase-outs but it also kills my joy.
Europe, meanwhile, seems to have fresh collections with lots of undeveloped land to expand and build completely new habitats. Though some species still struggle, there is also more room to grow than we have.
Yeah, I don't want to yuck anyone's yum if they are into sports on this level, and there are interesting lessons to learn, but it can be very sad to see millions of dollars going to other causes and then look to ours and see less. When I visited Denver, we visited an art exhibition that cost a steep admission fee (over $50) and nobody in the group raised an eyebrow; all I could imagine is a zoo costing that much would be viewed as greedy and excessive, even if the art exhibition doesn't have mouths to feed and fewer workers to employ. This is part of why I feel as I do in the original post - it seems like zoos only qualify for small investments and with only a handful of zoos receiving much money at a time. That concerns me greatly.
Mind you, that’s a bit of a broad oversimplification. While some zoological institutions in Europe, especially the ones built in the middle of nowhere or in the outskirts of metropolitan areas, still have room to expend, urban zoos in Europe have the very same issues regarding lack of space as their US counterparts. Which in the case of some historical zoos is kinda funny, given that some of them were originally built so far from the city that back-then visitors complained, and are now completely surrounded by the growing urban areas.
You're absolutely right, it does sound like I am oversimplifying and arguing that all European collections are like this - not my intent, but it still sounds it reading the quote. I really meant only to say that that it was a greater number of facilities meeting that description in contrast to us, not that it was a universal factor.