Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
There's also the Pueblo Zoo! It's just an hour south of Cheyenne Mountain, and while it's definitely not on par with Denver or Cheyenne Mountain's in terms of quality, it's a neat little zoo with a few rarities.
Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
There's also the Pueblo Zoo! It's just an hour south of Cheyenne Mountain, and while it's definitely not on par with Denver or Cheyenne Mountain's in terms of quality, it's a neat little zoo with a few rarities.
RandomZooVisitorYT
Well-Known Member
I don't blame you for coming to the conclusion the facility is underrated, and I've tried not to overpraise it since I left my lengthy positive review, but I do think saying it's "almost entirely... outdated paddocks" is an overstatement. Primate Panorama is pretty good on the whole, and Tropical Discovery is also pretty effective and alongside Elephant Passage and Predator Ridge these make up a pretty decent chunk of the zoo, maybe half of it.
As JVM already said, news threads are definitely not the best way to gauge a places popularity or overall opinion on this site. The activity in those threads is largely driven by the members that live near those zoos and how frequently they provide updates about their home zoos. Milwaukee especially is a good example of this as there are quite a few members here that are quite active from Wisconsin (almost to a point that zoo has an outsized representation of "homers" on this site). When you add in the the members from the Chicago area, Milwaukee is very well known and well visited by members on this site.
Of the zoos you mentioned, I wouldn't agree that they all get more "recognition" on this site than Toledo. Akron I hardly ever see mentioned on here and Franklin Park, if mentioned, normally seems to be mentioned for people to lament that it is not all that noteworthy. In the case of Minnesota, Woodland Park, and Detroit, I would argue the recognition is earned as those zoos are all better zoos than Toledo. With saying that, it is important to remember that ranking zoos is a purely subjective matter and no two people will ever completely agree.
For me, those three zoos fit into one of those categories I described in my first comment of having at least one world class exhibit (MN-Russia's Grizzly Coast, WP-Living Northwest Trail, Detroit- Polk Penguin, Amphibiville, Arctic Ring of Life, Red Pandas) and then everything else being mostly above average in terms of exhibitry. Franklin Park while not necessarily having anything outstanding, also doesn't have anything all that bad. I have not been to Cleveland or Akron so can't comment on those very much.
By comparison to these zoos, Toledo has one world class exhibit (ProMedica), a couple good ones (aquarium, aviary, and reptile house), and then a lot of below average ones. Toledo just has too many poor exhibits to truly be considered amongst the top zoos, in my opinion. The people on this site that I have seen really rally behind Toledo as a top notch zoo are those that seem to care less about the level of exhibitry and instead put more emphasis on the number of species held. While, I am at times guilty of this, Toledo's collection isn't big enough or significant enough to elevate it above Minnesota, Woodland Park, or Detroit as they mostly offer a more consistent level of exhibitry. This is not to say that one of these systems for ranking places is necessarily better than the other, but members on this site in general seem to put a greater emphasis on exhibitry than collection size (even though many of us still lament the downsizing of collections at the same time).
I'd like to get a better understanding of how you are using the term "heavy hitters" here, because I don't think I would describe any of those exhibits as "heavy hitters" unless you are just using it as a catch all for the major exhibits at the Toledo Zoo/exhibits with popular ABC animals. None of those areas hold up all that well in comparison to other zoos. Tembo Trail is dated and felt like a mess when I was there with a bunch of random animals thrown in, while the level of exhibitry also is not great. Flamingo Key is nice enough, but does it really stand above any other flamingo yard enough to bring Toledo extra recognition? With that, how often do see Flamingo aviary's being mentioned on this site in general? You have already pointed out the major flaw with Africa!, but in addition to this it is important to understand that so many zoos have significant African areas that it is hard to stand out in this area and Toledo is quickly overlooked for this reason (Tembo Trail also suffers from this with it's original African focus). The Pheasantry is unique and has some rarities, but in terms of exhibitry is it really better than the rows of aviaries found at countless other zoos? Arctic Encounter was excellent when it opened, but with so many new polar bear exhibits that have opened in the last 10-15 years, it now looks pretty outdated.
So saying Toledo has one of the best zoo aquariums in the country is kind of like saying "San Diego has one of the best panda exhibits in the country". Just like there are very few zoos that have Giant Pandas, there are very few zoos that have notable aquarium complexes and it is pretty easy to be seen as "one of the best". That being said, in addition to Omaha's, I would say Point Defiance (Tacoma) and Indianapolis both have better aquariums. I have not seen them, but I'm guessing I would also think the one in Pittsburgh and the new one in Kansas City are also better than Toledo's. Columbus also has one, but truly don't really know how that is viewed and I have not seen it. Brookfield and John Ball (Grand Rapids, MI) also have notable aquariums, although I don't know if I'd necessarily say they are better or worse than Toledo's. The only significant zoo aquariums I can think of that I would say are definitely not as good as Toledo's is Minnesota's and Oklahoma City (which I think is now closed). In the case of Minnesota there is nothing really bad about it, its just pretty boring and uninteresting when compared to others. So basically for me (and I'm sure others on here), of the bigger "zoo aquariums" were looking at Toledo's slotting in probably around the 5-8 spot of about 10 total. While having an aquarium of course earns them points over zoos that don't, I wouldn't necessarily put it as one of the best.
This honestly is the most telling part of your comment for me. The idea that the Bronx has the only aviary and especially reptile house that can compete with Toledo's leads me to believe your "zoo" travels have largely been focused on those closest to where you live, which often means a number of major zoos, but mostly mid-major to smaller zoos. And as another member of ZooChat recently owned up to on here, you can't truly judge an exhibit just based on pictures in the galleries.
For me, the Bronx for sure wouldn't crack my top 5 for reptile houses, but I'm not sure if it would be in the top 10. Fort Worth, San Diego, Dallas, St. Louis, Nashville, and Atlanta all immediately come to mind as having better reptile houses than the Bronx. Knoxville and Detroit, though smaller than the others, could also be thrown in there for consideration and while Omaha doesn't have a dedicated reptile house, it has quite a significant collection of reptiles on display. Los Angeles also immediately comes to mind as a reptile house I've heard a lot about, but still haven't seen. Again, these are just the ones off the top of my head and I know there are more I've seen that I'd have to consider in this.
This gets into a little bit of what I was saying in my first comment about people often saying a place is "underrated" because they really enjoyed it (or have an emotional connection to it) and they can't understand how other people can disagree with them. For me "Favorite" and "Best" are two completely different things. "Favorite" implies that I really liked it because I had such a great experience there, but that was my own personal experience and not everyone's will be the same. "Best" implies that I have set that experience aside and taken a critical look at the facility in comparison to others.
My "favorite" zoos don't necessarily line up with the zoos I view as the "best". For example, I grew up going to the Minnesota Zoo and Como Park Zoo and never really went to any others until I was in college. One of the first zoos I visited when I got older was the Milwaukee County Zoo and I was amazed at the zoos size, many different buildings, and animals they exhibited and couldn't understand how people on ZooChat would ever say Minnesota is better than Milwaukee. At that time, I largely saw Minnesota for what it was not. As my zoo travels became more extensive (somewhere around 275 at this point, working on fleshing out my list/rankings) I am now better able to understand why others feel that way. Milwaukee is still one of my "favorite" zoos, but right now is sitting at around 35th "Best" on my lifetime zoo rankings and I still have more zoos to enter that will bump it lower. For nostalgia reasons, Como Park is still one of my "favorite" zoos, but understandably no one talks much about it here on ZooChat, because there isn't really that much significant about it.
Last edited:
Realized this may sound like I'm saying Toledo doesn't belong in the conversation of best reptile houses, it definitely does. But again, with so many good reptile houses out there, it's hard to say Toledo's is necessarily so much better than any others to warrant more recognition or elevate the entire zoo above those others.
RandomZooVisitorYT
Well-Known Member
I would say Toledo probably has the 4th best reptile house that I've seen (behind Fort Worth, St. Louis, and Dallas.
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
As for reptile houses I forgot about Fort Worth Zoo with also is an amazing competitor, after seeing the praise of world of birds I thought it would be the same for reptiles at Bronx, As for my rankings of reptiles houses:
1. Toledo
2. Knoxville (I remember loving it)
3. St Louis (Barely remember)
4. Atlanta (Visited in February, not that impressive)
5. San Diego Zoo (Enjoyed the “outdoor” house with its many reptiles I haven’t seen before)
@NSU42 I do plan on making a response to your comment (in a positive way mostly agreeing with your points) and adding some of my thoughts.
Edit- I barely remember St Louis Zoo as a whole and Knoxville but I knew of its massive praise for their reptile houses. Although I remember Knoxville more, I visited St. Louis in 2018 and Knoxville in 2016.
1. Toledo
2. Knoxville (I remember loving it)
3. St Louis (Barely remember)
4. Atlanta (Visited in February, not that impressive)
5. San Diego Zoo (Enjoyed the “outdoor” house with its many reptiles I haven’t seen before)
@NSU42 I do plan on making a response to your comment (in a positive way mostly agreeing with your points) and adding some of my thoughts.
Edit- I barely remember St Louis Zoo as a whole and Knoxville but I knew of its massive praise for their reptile houses. Although I remember Knoxville more, I visited St. Louis in 2018 and Knoxville in 2016.
Frankie_number_1_fan
Well-Known Member
Strongly agree with this. Toledo is a close to home zoo that I really do adore from a sentimental perspective, but there are less exibits than I can count on one hand that I would actually consider "good". Even their most recent exhibits fell flat almost instantly, and the fact that they still rely on dreadfully outdated exhibits for even some of their ABC animals really speaks to the overall quality of the zoo. Its a zoo with a collection that has the potential to be incredible, but imo needs an ambitious and lengthy rehaul of nearly every exhibit to be considered a top zoo.
I really love Toledo, and I do think it's one of the best zoos in the county - but its reptile house is not worth this praise. It's got a really nice collection but its exhibitory is nothing special. In fact, I would argue the Promedica Museum is a better reptile house at Toledo than their actual reptile house.
filovirus
Well-Known Member
I guess my hot take here is that when I think "aquariums at zoos", I don't even really consider Minnesota. Like, it fits the definition of one, I have no doubt that it is in the eyes of many an aquarium... but I find Discovery Bay so underwhelming that I don't really consider it an aquarium personally, more of a fish exhibit.
For those unfamiliar- the Minnesota Zoo's Discovery Bay has the following features:
- A large saltwater Atlantic reef tank, sometimes called "shark reef", featuring sand tiger sharks, southern stingrays, a few sea turtles (though most of of them have bubble butt so they're not terribly visible unless you know to look up), green moray eels, jacks, pompanos, a big ol' grouper (my favorite), and a small variety of other fish. It's a nice tank, but viewing is limited to a few glass panes, nothing so in-depth as a walkthrough tunnel. 218k gallons
- Currently they have a single Hawaiian Monk Seal on rotation with a few California Sea Lions in what was previously a dolphin tank, and before that a beluga tank.... it is a large concrete enclosure with very little fanfare
- A large central touch tank with leopard sharks and rays (prime real estate for a child looking to fall face-first into the water)
- A smaller touch tank with sea stars and anemones, complete with a waterfall that goes off every so often
- A smaller walk-through section with seadragons, seahorses, coral, and some small saltwater fish- think clownfish and the like
A big fish room that does important work, mind you. Growing coral and housing seals and tending to injured sea turtles. But the average visitor doesn't really care about those things as much as I, or other zoochatters, do.
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
When i say Toledo i group the museum and reptile house together. The house itself is only good for the Australian herps.
I don't know how much of a hot take this is as I definitely agree with you. It is a very week aquarium compared to those at other zoos and that is why it is definitely on the low end of any ranking of them. I also think it is an after thought for most people when it comes to "zoo aquariums" because I don't think I've ever seen it mentioned before when that conversation comes up.
That being said with the large shark tank and seals, touch tanks, and other smaller tanks, along with the fact that it is its own self contained exhibit away from everything else, it is more of a dedicated aquarium complex than most zoos have.
Honestly, I feel like it would be better perceived if it were laid out more like a typical aquarium instead of one big room. The fact that you can see everything when you enter makes it feel smaller than it is and does not allow for any real chance of discovery/adventure. If it were laid out as a series of separate hallways/rooms like most aquariums, I think it would feel larger than it does right now and would be more highly regarded. (Perhaps that is a hot take?) The closest example to what I'm talking about I think would be the smaller aquarium at Tacoma. There are only about 5-6 tanks in there and the main draw is the large shark tank, but it feels more like an aquarium because of its layout and is themed better. Overall though, I completely agree it is an afterthought in terms of "zoo aquariums" and is underwhelming as you said.
filovirus
Well-Known Member
I agree with this but also think part of the problem- for me anyway- is that there's just less in there than there used to be. At least, it feels that way.
For instance, there used to be a cuttlefish tank to the left when you enter the space, near the bathrooms. It was taken out a few years ago and replaced with just a sign, I think. The biggest victim of the decline in variety though is imo the dolphin tank. Maybe it's just me, maybe I'm biased- but to me pinnipeds are very underwhelming compared to cetaceans. Mainly because if I wanna see a sea lion I can pop on over to Como, a zoo whose mascot in my eyes is Sparky the Sea Lion.
Do I think the tank is fit for cetaceans? Not necessarily, which makes my opinion that much more complicated to express. There's part of me that's glad cetaceans aren't in there anymore. But last year, when the zoo was housing Brookfield's dolphins during renovations, I was reminded of just how magical cetaceans feel, at least to me. I think it can be generally agreed that it's certainly not suitable for belugas, but dolphins... I dunno. I'm far from an expert on cetacean care, all I know is that pinnipeds just don't excite me in the same way.
In general while I find the Minnesota Zoo's quality of exhibits really remarkable, I feel like the last few years have felt pretty underwhelming with regards to the species they display. Their recent expansions have focused a TON on the Treetop Trail which really does not excite me. Minnesota is chock full of beautiful scenic outdoor trails and places to explore- even in Apple Valley! I go to the zoo for animals.
I swear on my life there was an expansion plan about a decade ago that detailed lions, orangutans, giraffes, and hippos. I'd kill to see that kind of stuff in action at the Minnesota Zoo- I think it would really make it a national contender in the same way Omaha is.
Is the Monk Seal still on rotation? I thought it had been pulled BTS permanently.
Another hot take:
For the most part, zoo 'animal buildings' are better than outdoor enclosures.
The reptile house at the Bronx isn't bad, but I don't personally think it is good enough to compete with the other big zoos out there. There are also A LOT of smaller, mid-major zoos (especially in the south) out there that have decently large reptile houses that need to be considered when this discussion comes up, such as Caldwell in Texas and the more well traveled ZooChatters would tell you not sleep on Staten Island as well. While these houses will never come up in conversations of the truly best ones, they are large enough and good enough to start talking about them when we get to a top 10-20 range.
filovirus
Well-Known Member
First point - I'm not 100% sure, haven't visited recently so I can't attest. I would be unsurprised as I'm pretty sure their remaining Hawaiian Monk Seal issss pretty old? I think? so I wouldn't be shocked if she's living out her retirement behind the scenes.
Completely agree with your second point. The more AC I get to enjoy the better lol
Yes, I'm not saying this rearrangement would necessarily do much in terms of elevating its status among the ranks of zoo/aquariums, but I do think it would make it more noteworthy to the extent that we don't overlook.
The pinnipeds were the only reasonable, easy, and cost-effective option for them. I agree it was truly magical to see dolphins at the Minnesota Zoo again, but the reality of it is I can really only think of one zoo/aquarium that I have been to that currently houses dolphins in a worse exhibit than Minnesota's. Minnesota's is just too small for bottlenose in my opinion and thought this when seeing them there again. Perhaps a smaller dolphin species like Pacific White-sided Dolphins would work better, but even then Minnesota is pretty small and their are so few of them in captivity in the US there is no chance its really even plausible. (Another wishful thought would maybe be if SeaWorld/Aquatica is looking to get rid of the Commerson's Dolphins that remain like they did with the Hawaiian Monk Seals, but that is very unlikely.)
The reality is most zoos are loosing species in order to make room for the remaining species and zoos are trying to get ahead of the anti-zoo PR. As for the Treetop Trail, it is definitely not exciting to zoo nerds, but it is one of the first things the zoo was actually able to get people behind and fundraise for in a LONG time, so from the zoo's perspective it is pretty exciting. I have also seen/heard more chatter about it from the general public than it is talked about here. My wife worked on the initial PR campaign for the Treetop Trail and in general this is how the zoo saw it as well.
Yes, this was the 2012 Master Plan, but that has long since been abandoned. Some of the pages from this are posted in the current Minnesota Zoo News Thread. It had plans for a new African section (I think where the old Musk Ox exhibit is), an expansion of the Tropics Trail with an event space overlooking a new Orangutan habitat, and three different proposals for what to do with the dolphin tank. Alas, the zoo was never able to generate funding for any of the projects, which is a big reason why (if I remember correctly) the previous zoo director, Lee Ehmke, left for Houston (and look what he has been able to accomplish there). The current director seems much more focused on maintaining what is already there over further expansion. I won't get much into it here, but because it is a state-owned zoo, Minnesota is in a tricky situation when it comes to getting government funds for projects compared to most other zoos and Como. North Carolina, the only other state-owned zoo, has faced similar difficulties. If you're interested in that, look here. (EDIT to add a link to the previous thread as the comments I am referring to got split up.)
Last edited:
Kitt
Active Member
Very much agree with your points - I will always love the Minnesota Zoo but in recent years it has felt stagnant. Definitely past its glory days. The dolphin tank is absolutely a product of the times, and while I don't think it would be a good permanent home, seeing Brookfield's dolphins there did breathe a lot of life into the space. I think pinnipeds are a decent choice - but yeah, personally if I want to see California sea lions I would just go to Como instead. It would have been cool to see a more unique species in that exhibit, but I'm sure that space makes things complicated as to what they can do.
I am disappointed by the zoos move towards non-animal development - I do like that they are bringing new life to older facilities and infrastructure, but it's sad to see they aren't bringing in new species or updating any exhibits. Other zoos around the country are constantly evolving and innovating with their exhibits and collections so I'm sad to see Minnesota fall quite far behind. I do hope that their focus on guest/visitor infrastructure brings in more visitors and funds, so hopefully we can see those kinds of animal-based expansions in the future.
Aardwolf
Well-Known Member
Here's a take inspired by all of the panda talk, recently - for all of their rarity and the expense associated with them, I feel like giant pandas actually have simpler exhibit requirements (as in, what the animal actual requires, rather than what the PRC requires of loaning zoos) than other bears. Zoos spend vast amounts of money of enclosures for an animal which, in its natural state, is most inclined to sit down in one spot and eat all of the food in arm's reach, and then move 10 feet, sit down, and repeat the process (I'm exaggerating, I know). I always get slightly irked when I visit the National Zoo and see the panda exhibit (which has been renovated several times in my lifetime) at the top of the zoo, and then the rather plain and unimpressive Andean bear habitat at the bottom of the zoo, which has largely been untouched. I'm not opposed to giant pandas in US zoos and certainly want them to have the best welfare, but it's a little exasperating to see San Diego and National repeatedly pour money into what are already perfectly fine exhibits at the expense of other potential projects.