Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

[RandomZooVisitorYT]

Hot take:

The Springfield Wonders of Wildlife Aquarium trumps the Dallas World Aquarium.

Hear me out:
While the DWA is very immersive and has a large variety of incredibly rare to find species in zoos, their exhibit quality especially Oceania, their giant otter, caiman, and marmoset exhibits, among many others are simply way too small as opposed to SWOW which while the black bear space is below average size and their flamingos don't have outdoor access, that is it for complaints. I would even say it is even more immersive on account of Dallas having a row of aquariums without much of a theme, while the SWOW keeps a consistent theme throughout.

 

[Local_Shark]

Tell me about it, Columbus shrunk the list of animals list on their website along with San Diego. Henry Doorly doesn't even have one at all.

Drives me absolutely crazy. Every zoo and aquarium should at least have fact pages on their large/iconic animals divided by the exhibits they appear. Monterey and Georgia are the best on the aquarium side of this in my view.

 

[birdsandbats]

- Monterey Bay Aquarium needs to return to their old ways of experimenting with previously unseen species in American facilities. The Open Sea exhibit post remodel is soooooo boring. It’s probably the best experimental exhibit platform for pelagic species in the States and they’re not using it at all, unlike somewhat similarly geared aquariums like Tokyo Sea Life Park in Japan.

MBA still does tons of experimenting with new species, just in parts of the aquarium other than Open Sea. What do you think Into the Deep is?

 

[USZOOfan42]

Hot take:

The Springfield Wonders of Wildlife Aquarium trumps the Dallas World Aquarium.

Hear me out:
While the DWA is very immersive and has a large variety of incredibly rare to find species in zoos, their exhibit quality especially Oceania, their giant otter, caiman, and marmoset exhibits, among many others are simply way too small as opposed to SWOW which while the black bear space is below average size and their flamingos don't have outdoor access, that is it for complaints. I would even say it is even more immersive on account of Dallas having a row of aquariums without much of a theme, while the SWOW keeps a consistent theme throughout.

Now this is a hot take, I have not visited either and would personally rather visit DWA (in terms of rarities) but I understand why SWOW could be better. For someone who has not visit either I think you would be better served off to visit DWA.

 

[StoppableSan]

- Monterey Bay Aquarium needs to return to their old ways of experimenting with previously unseen species in American facilities. The Open Sea exhibit post remodel is soooooo boring. It’s probably the best experimental exhibit platform for pelagic species in the States and they’re not using it at all, unlike somewhat similarly geared aquariums like Tokyo Sea Life Park in Japan.
- Aquarium and zoo websites are an absolute nightmare for those interested in finding out what species are present where. The chasm in quality between aquariums like Georgia who at least try to keep an accurate database and those like any of the Sea Lifes who don’t keep any sort of accurate list is astonishing. It wouldn’t be hard for every facility to have a semi complete list!

- I got three words for you: Into the Deep. The Open Sea exhibit's a banger of an exhibit even without the rarities, though having a mola mola on a more regular basis would be the cherry on top of an already amazing sundae.
- I do believe zoos and aquariums should be transparent with the animals they have. A system like ZSL, which has stocklists of all the animals they have that they update yearly in bulk, is an option for how more zoos and aquariums can go about it. Issue is, some collections are more in flux than others.

 

[PossumRoach]

- I do believe zoos and aquariums should be transparent with the animals they have. A system like ZSL, which has stocklists of all the animals they have that they update yearly in bulk, is an option for how more zoos and aquariums can go about it. Issue is, some collections are more in flux than others.

Many zoos in Europe, including large collections, already publish their stock lists annually.

The only problem with stock lists is that many critics could use the number of dead animals or animals given away in bad faith.

 

[Local_Shark]

@birdsandbats @StoppableSan I should clarify - I both am very aware of and love Into the Deep! It’s an awesome exhibit, arguably the best new one in the world, and certainly worthy of all praise. But that doesn’t really negate my point, which is that while they funneled plenty of cash Into the Deep, as it were, they have a massive endowment mostly from Hewlett-Packard’s foundation, and some of the highest revenues of any aquarium or zoo. They could absolutely spend a little money elsewhere to, as noted, bring in new mola mola more regularly, and of course to bring in new pelagic species. The bluefin tuna, somewhat dangerous due to their size and speed as they’ve said in the past, are gone - no real reason they couldn’t try out some new shark species. Even something as comparatively simple as a bronze whaler would be incredibly special for a species collector nerd like me and I’m sure even more people would shell out $60 to see that and Into the Deep all at once.

 

[birdsandbats]

@birdsandbats @StoppableSan I should clarify - I both am very aware of and love Into the Deep! It’s an awesome exhibit, arguably the best new one in the world, and certainly worthy of all praise. But that doesn’t really negate my point, which is that while they funneled plenty of cash Into the Deep, as it were, they have a massive endowment mostly from Hewlett-Packard’s foundation, and some of the highest revenues of any aquarium or zoo. They could absolutely spend a little money elsewhere to, as noted, bring in new mola mola more regularly, and of course to bring in new pelagic species. The bluefin tuna, somewhat dangerous due to their size and speed as they’ve said in the past, are gone - no real reason they couldn’t try out some new shark species. Even something as comparatively simple as a bronze whaler would be incredibly special for a species collector nerd like me and I’m sure even more people would shell out $60 to see that and Into the Deep all at once.

I think you're overestimating what they can do - do you know how much time and money goes into researching and keeping a species whose care requirements are not well understood?

 

[Local_Shark]

I think you're overestimating what they can do - do you know how much time and money goes into researching and keeping a species whose care requirements are not well understood?

Yeah, I’m a marine biologist who started out for some time in the aquarium industry and am still involved in it to some extent. It’s not at all inexpensive to do what they’re doing with Into the Deep and the opening of that exhibit is what’s eaten a lot of their funding for the last few years, from what those I’ve spoken with who work there or otherwise know the figures say. But I will say the suggestion I just made to bring on a new shark species like a bronze whaler would not require that same kind of maintenance or research. Whalers have been kept in captivity before, albeit briefly and in international aquaria, and their needs are similar to those of a silky shark or blacktip shark which are widely kept in much smaller and less well-funded US aquaria now (i.e. the state-run ABQ BioPark in the case of C. limbatus). Even an oceanic whitetip would be very much experimental as one hasn’t been kept in almost exactly 20 years, but its needs are very well known especially by MBA staff as they were the last ones who did it (and it lived 2-3 years).

 

[flatstingray]

I highly recommend any zoochatter to hear this podcast/interview with John O'Sullivan, the director of collections at Monterey Bay Aquarium. He gives unique and extremely amazing insights about what it takes to exhibit this animals as well as amazing stories about the past, present and future of the species at the MBA.

Career Insights and Inspiring Stories from Marine Biologist John O'Sullivan

 

[USZOOfan42]

Hot Take- Toledo is the most underrated zoo in America, it has one of the best reptile houses, aquariums, museums (if not THE best), aviary and many rarities like tuatara and Tasmanian devil.

 

[RandomZooVisitorYT]

I a

Hot Take- Toledo is the most underrated zoo in America, it has one of the best reptile houses, aquariums, museums (if not THE best), aviary and many rarities like tuatara and Tasmanian devil.

I agree that it is underrated but I think the aquarium is passable at best. The Toledo Zoo is 13 after KC on my 42 zoos list, but I do commend that it has a surprisingly good savanna. As for facilities that are more underrated I would say Fort Worth, Minnesota, among others are more worthwhile yet unheard of.

 

[NSU42]

Hot Take- Toledo is the most underrated zoo in America, it has one of the best reptile houses, aquariums, museums (if not THE best), aviary and many rarities like tuatara and Tasmanian devil.

Whenever I see someone use the word underrated, I always feel the need to ask "underrated" by whom? The general public? Zoochatters? Generally, it seems people who feel something is "underrated" often feel this way because they're upset that not everyone enjoyed it as much as they did and point out a places flaws.

From what I have seen, Toledo tends to be fairly well known on this site and I believe rated pretty fairly. In general, most people seem to agree it has a great collection and is a very well rounded zoo when it comes to species representation, but that it's exhibits overall fail it (with a few exceptions).

From my visit, I would tend to agree with this assessment. The ProMedica building is brilliant and very unique in terms of zoo exhibits, but nothing outside of that really stands out enough to put it in the conversation to be a top level zoo. While the reptile house, aquarium, and aviary are all quite good at times, none of them are all that special and are outshined by those at other zoos. The reptile house itself is mostly notable for its collection as the exhibits in there are pretty cramped. As great as those areas may be, the outdoor sections of the zoo are all pretty average to below average (again with a few exceptions) and the buildings are just not enough to pull it up into the conversation of "top zoos" for me.

The very best zoos consistently maintain the level of excellence that Toledo has in the aquarium and aviary, while then having multiple exhibits on the level of the ProMedica building to go with them to blow visitors away. The ones below those typically have at least one ProMedica level exhibit and then maintain a level of average to above average exhibits. While Toledo's large collection helps elevate it in my mind, it is not enough to make it more highly rated until much of the zoo is overhauled and improved.

 

[USZOOfan42]

I a

I agree that it is underrated but I think the aquarium is passable at best. The Toledo Zoo is 13 after KC on my 42 zoos list, but I do commend that it has a surprisingly good savanna. As for facilities that are more underrated I would say Fort Worth, Minnesota, among others are more worthwhile yet unheard of.

To me one of the most disappointing exhibits there is the savanna! Minnesota's praise is more difficult to see since it reminds me a lot of Detroit, large spacious habitats, and dozens of phase outs. Fort Worth on the other hand (I have not visited by the way) is in a similar situation to toledo. Although I see it's praise more, I do think it is a better zoo overall.

 

[USZOOfan42]

Whenever I see someone use the word underrated, I always feel the need to ask "underrated" by whom? The general public? Zoochatters? Generally, it seems people who feel something is "underrated" often feel this way because they're upset that not everyone enjoyed it as much as they did and point out a places flaws.

From what I have seen, Toledo tends to be fairly well known on this site and I believe rated pretty fairly. In general, most people seem to agree it has a great collection and is a very well rounded zoo when it comes to species representation, but that it's exhibits overall fail it (with a few exceptions).

From my visit, I would tend to agree with this assessment. The ProMedica building is brilliant and very unique in terms of zoo exhibits, but nothing outside of that really stands out enough to put it in the conversation to be a top level zoo. While the reptile house, aquarium, and aviary are all quite good at times, none of them are all that special and are outshined by those at other zoos. The reptile house itself is mostly notable for its collection as the exhibits in there are pretty cramped. As great as those areas may be, the outdoor sections of the zoo are all pretty average to below average (again with a few exceptions) and the buildings are just not enough to pull it up into the conversation of "top zoos" for me.

The very best zoos consistently maintain the level of excellence that Toledo has in the aquarium and aviary, while then having multiple exhibits on the level of the ProMedica building to go with them to blow visitors away. The ones below those typically have at least one ProMedica level exhibit and then maintain a level of average to above average exhibits. While Toledo's large collection helps elevate it in my mind, it is not enough to make it more highly rated until much of the zoo is overhauled and improved.

I would argue that it doesn't receive enough recognition on this site. Yes, it receives some recognition but other zoos like Franklin Park, Cleveland, Akron, Detroit, Minnesota, Milwaukee, and Woodland Park are notable zoos that receive a ton more of praise compared to Toledo. Just look at its news thread, it only has 5 pages while Detroit has 11! The outdoor exhibits are not on par with their indoor habitats but they still have some heavy hitters (Tembo Trek, Pheasentry, Flamingo Key, Africa!, and Arctic Encounter). The ape habitats are the weakests parts of the zoo IMO, but tiger terrance could be a lot better. As for the indoor exhibits, from what I've seen only a few zoos compare. Omaha for the aquarium, Bronx for the aviary (maybe dc), Bronx? for the reptile house and no other compare for the museum. After visiting 50 different zoos, Toledo is still one of my favorites and I personally like their reptile and aviary to be the best I've visited. I have not visited Bronx but I do plan on soon.

 

[RandomZooVisitorYT]

To me one of the most disappointing exhibits there is the savanna! Minnesota's praise is more difficult to see since it reminds me a lot of Detroit, large spacious habitats, and dozens of phase outs. Fort Worth on the other hand (I have not visited by the way) is in a similar situation to toledo. Although I see it's praise more, I do think it is a better zoo overall.

May I ask how Toledo zoos Savanna is disappointing?

 

[USZOOfan42]

May I ask how Toledo zoos Savanna is disappointing?

Not the best viewing, now there's asian ungulates and the indoor giraffe exhibit. Also, it seems like a shadow of it's former self with the species it's lost.

 

[JVM]

Yes, it receives some recognition but other zoos like Franklin Park, Cleveland, Akron, Detroit, Minnesota, Milwaukee, and Woodland Park are notable zoos that receive a ton more of praise compared to Toledo. Just look at its news thread, it only has 5 pages while Detroit has 11!

I'm glad you tipped hat to what you were using as a barometer here as that makes discussion much easier.

Pages in a news thread =/= praise

The fact you included Milwaukee is very telling. I'm relatively willing to go up to bat for Milwaukee more than many, but there is not a single exhibit at Milwaukee that is widely liked across the site with the exception of the aviary. The facility did not crack the 'America's Must-See Zoos' thread (nor did anyone debate its exclusion) in which Toledo *did* appear, and the inclusion of the predator/prey exhibits in the 'Must-See Exhibits' thread is much more for historical relevance for the Hagenback-inspired architecture than because of quality. The small mammal house, bear grottos, and cat exhibits are all viewed as substandard to awful exhibits. The new hippo exhibit is very unpopular here, too. It happens to have an active news thread for a few reasons (proximity to Chicago, being the biggest AZA collection in Wisconsin, new developments, elephants) but if you go out into the 'General Zoo Discussion - North America' it doesn't get much attention or reference anywhere. This is what I tend to use to evaluate on-zoochat popularity.

Toledo is much more broadly popular in my experience. ProMedica, Reptile House, the Bird House, the pheasantry are all brought up fairly often, certainly more often in my experience than Akron, Milwaukee, or Cleveland, and while there isn't a consensus that any but ProMedica are all-time great, must-sees, they contain a more than respectable collection. The Aquarium also used to be popular but has slid a bit more clearly over the years.

Sometimes news threads are just more active than others. Saint Louis is usually considered one of the best zoos on this site but a lot of the thread activity is kept up by only a couple of people. Denver is also well-liked but relatively underdiscussed because it's out of the way for a lot of people and not road trip-friendly. Lincoln Park is a popular, widely visited facility but very few users see reason to comment. Facilities with larger collections and larger campuses tend to be more active because there is a greater sense of change, real or imagined, and facilities with renovations and developments in the works or on the horizon will gain a lot of discussion.

Minnesota, Woodland Park and Detroit do seem very popular to me out of those you listed.

 

[CMP]

Denver is also well-liked but relatively underdiscussed because it's out of the way for a lot of people and not road trip-friendly

Now this is a real contender for most underrated zoos in the US, along with OKC, Sedgewick Co. Zoo, and Tulsa Zoo. Not many would make a dedicated road trip to the last three (Myself excluded, definitely planning to do some someday), although Denver has the advantage of being a large city with a massive airport right next to Rocky Mountains NP.

 

[Aardwolf]

Denver has the added advantage that a visit to see it can also be combined with a trip to Cheyenne Mountain. I’ve done both of those facilities on back to back days, wi the enough time to do the Downtown Aquarium in the evening.