Zoo "Confessions"

jayjds2 said:
Have you ever tried to crate train an animal? It is a very unnatural thing for most animals to do. It is dismissive to say that it is “obviously due to stress” when in reality it is most likely that the keepers at Omaha did not start training the behavior soon enough. Many animals take months or even over a year of constant training in order to crate regularly. Any number of factors could affect the animal’s willingness to do so, but why would stress be one? It’s not like the rhino knew he was to be moved.
Click to expand...
No, I haven't tried crate training animals as I have had no desire to keep them in crates. There are multiple stress factors involved in moving animals and putting them in a transport container is one of these. I have driven over a thousand miles with cats in carriers several times so I understand the need to confine animals during transit. As for the rhino not knowing he was to be moved, animals are sentient beings and they pick up on many things in their environment, including the emotions and anxieties of people around them.
 
Lori Patton said:
No, I haven't tried crate training animals as I have had no desire to keep them in crates. There are multiple stress factors involved in moving animals and putting them in a transport container is one of these. I have driven over a thousand miles with cats in carriers several times so I understand the need to confine animals during transit. As for the rhino not knowing he was to be moved, animals are sentient beings and they pick up on many things in their environment, including the emotions and anxieties of people around them.
Click to expand...
But they weren’t “putting him” in a crate. If they were, the delay wouldn’t have happened. I too have driven far distances with a cat, not really sure how that’s applicable here. Regardless of whether the rhino could sense people’s emotions, that would not in turn lead to stress on its part. And again, I think that stress is not a likely reason for a transport delay.
 
My zoo confessions:

I like the Maryland Zoo more than the National Zoo

Ever since I was a child, I have had recurring nightmares about being trapped in a horrible run-down zoo and now have a morbid fascination with looking through galleries of the worst zoos/exhibits in the country. I have this weird feeling one day, I might find the one from my dream

I spent all day at the Bronx Zoo and left without seeing JungleWorld despite it being one of the things I most wanted to do there because I couldn't find the dang place

It's hard for me to tell if an exhibit is good or just has dynamic, moving water. 9 times out of 10, I won't be able to tell the difference between a good exhibit and a mediocre exhibit with a cool water feature

When I was in college, I used to go to the National Zoo and sit on benches and write down funny things people said and use them as inspiration for a creative writing class I was in. If you went to the zoo between 2010-2011, you may have appeared in a story I wrote.

I don't agree with the breeding of white tigers, but I have to admit, I still lowkey miss when the National Zoo had a white tiger when I was a kid. They look cool even though I know breeding them is ethically bad, that their health is generally poor, and that it's better to use the zoo space for non-generic subspecies of tiger.

I am almost 32 and if there's a carousel with animals that aren't horses, I always want to ride it
 
TheGytrash said:
My zoo confessions:

I like the Maryland Zoo more than the National Zoo

Ever since I was a child, I have had recurring nightmares about being trapped in a horrible run-down zoo and now have a morbid fascination with looking through galleries of the worst zoos/exhibits in the country. I have this weird feeling one day, I might find the one from my dream

I spent all day at the Bronx Zoo and left without seeing JungleWorld despite it being one of the things I most wanted to do there because I couldn't find the dang place

It's hard for me to tell if an exhibit is good or just has dynamic, moving water. 9 times out of 10, I won't be able to tell the difference between a good exhibit and a mediocre exhibit with a cool water feature

When I was in college, I used to go to the National Zoo and sit on benches and write down funny things people said and use them as inspiration for a creative writing class I was in. If you went to the zoo between 2010-2011, you may have appeared in a story I wrote.

I don't agree with the breeding of white tigers, but I have to admit, I still lowkey miss when the National Zoo had a white tiger when I was a kid. They look cool even though I know breeding them is ethically bad, that their health is generally poor, and that it's better to use the zoo space for non-generic subspecies of tiger.

I am almost 32 and if there's a carousel with animals that aren't horses, I always want to ride it
Click to expand...

Why do you prefer Maryland to National?
 
ZooElephantMan said:
Why do you prefer Maryland to National?
Click to expand...

The vibes are more fun, I guess. I love the National Zoo, but the Maryland Zoo just makes me happy. I think the amount of concrete in the National Zoo also just mildly turns me off even though it's not like it makes it less suitable for the animals. By far my favorite part of the National Zoo is the American Trail, which has some of that theming to it that I like about the Maryland one. I also think the layout makes it easier to linger and spend more time at each exhibit.

Also, the Maryland Zoo has some of my favorite animals that aren't in DC: okapi, penguin, chimpanzee.
 
There's a chance this is controversial. I'm going to go for it.

I really don't like seeing exhibits stay empty for longer periods of time. I find them fascinating as a historical thing, definitely, so in some sense I don't quite literally hate them, but even when the exhibits are not up to modern standard I often find myself wishing they still had some resident until their date with the bulldozer. Even seeing a raccoon on an outdated concrete bear grotto feels in some ways superior to having a big empty hunk of rock. There's obviously a valid point that guests seeing animals in outdated exhibits will harm a zoo's reputation, and I acknowledge that, but I also think if that exhibit is going to stand unattended for several years, not just a couple, it feels like a colossal waste of space and opportunity.

I'm putting this in 'confessions' because none of this is intended as an argument to actually fill every horrible exhibit in America, heavens no, I realize this is irrational and I'm heavily biased because of specific local habitats I've seen empty more than I've seen them filled, but it's a thought I often have.
 
JVM said:
There's a chance this is controversial. I'm going to go for it.

I really don't like seeing exhibits stay empty for longer periods of time. I find them fascinating as a historical thing, definitely, so in some sense I don't quite literally hate them, but even when the exhibits are not up to modern standard I often find myself wishing they still had some resident until their date with the bulldozer. Even seeing a raccoon on an outdated concrete bear grotto feels in some ways superior to having a big empty hunk of rock. There's obviously a valid point that guests seeing animals in outdated exhibits will harm a zoo's reputation, and I acknowledge that, but I also think if that exhibit is going to stand unattended for several years, not just a couple, it feels like a colossal waste of space and opportunity.

I'm putting this in 'confessions' because none of this is intended as an argument to actually fill every horrible exhibit in America, heavens no, I realize this is irrational and I'm heavily biased because of specific local habitats I've seen empty more than I've seen them filled, but it's a thought I often have.
Click to expand...
I actually quite like this post due many to zoos like detroit and brookfield which have large amounts of empty grounds and many habitats abandoned. Both zoos seem to have a lack of animals in the last few decades and have a lot of empty space. I could see many other zoos in this situation but I feel those two best describe this issue.
 
JVM said:
There's a chance this is controversial. I'm going to go for it.

I really don't like seeing exhibits stay empty for longer periods of time. I find them fascinating as a historical thing, definitely, so in some sense I don't quite literally hate them, but even when the exhibits are not up to modern standard I often find myself wishing they still had some resident until their date with the bulldozer. Even seeing a raccoon on an outdated concrete bear grotto feels in some ways superior to having a big empty hunk of rock. There's obviously a valid point that guests seeing animals in outdated exhibits will harm a zoo's reputation, and I acknowledge that, but I also think if that exhibit is going to stand unattended for several years, not just a couple, it feels like a colossal waste of space and opportunity.

I'm putting this in 'confessions' because none of this is intended as an argument to actually fill every horrible exhibit in America, heavens no, I realize this is irrational and I'm heavily biased because of specific local habitats I've seen empty more than I've seen them filled, but it's a thought I often have.
Click to expand...
I strongly agree with this. I've been to a lot of zoos that leave enclosures empty for years and it often ends up feeling very depressing. Most enclosures that may have become outdated for their original larger residents could easily be repurposed for a smaller species.
 
birdsandbats said:
I strongly agree with this. I've been to a lot of zoos that leave enclosures empty for years and it often ends up feeling very depressing. Most enclosures that may have become outdated for their original larger residents could easily be repurposed for a smaller species.
Click to expand...

This is one of the things that I really liked about Pueblo Zoo when I went there last year for my birthday. They have an entire row of historic bear grottos that they've repurposed into exhibits for non-releasable birds of prey species.
 
My confession is that I think all nocturnal animal habitats should be fitted with stadium-style 50k Lumen floodlamps. for ease of viewing, of course. maybe even make them flash off and on at random intervals to keep those freaky little critters on their toes.

(joking. of course. when it comes to the dangers of flash photography, this video from the Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium comes to mind. TW animal death at ~28 seconds. A tuna drills itself into the glass after a photographer uses their flash.)

My real zoo confession is that I sometimes prefer taxidermy collections a la natural history museums, and wish that more zoos had some on offer. I think there's tremendous value in getting to see a specimen up-close. Articulated skeletons, full-body mounts, busts, skins... I don't love reproductions but they can be interesting too.
 
I recall years ago I was at zoo with a Madagascar exhibit I made point of seeing with the respective adult; particularly because of the 'quail' that was there.
You may have been able to guess - the 'quail' was in fact a Madagascar Partridge, but I chose to call it a quail because that was a group of animals I particularly liked [good for Scrabble!] and I thought it looked very much like other old-world quails; and perhaps more like them than it did to the 'partridges' of which I knew.
Unfortunately we never made it there in time and the exhibit closed. So I went home without seeing the coveted animal. And then some time later I felt it odd how I called it a quail when it's a Madagascar partridge.
And more recently I was looking into taxonomy of the Himalayan Quail, which is in the group Coturnici. And guess who's also in Coturnici?
The Madagascar Partridge!
I then look for the scientific paper that proposes this galliforme taxonomy - and find that not only is the Madagascar Partridge in Coturnici [quails, snowcocks, and spurfowls] but it is in fact nested rather nicely within Coturnix polyphyletically...
so it would seem I had every reason to call it a quail on that day! And I didn't even really understand taxonomy yet then, and this was years before mentioned paper!


*addendum
It's nested more within Coturnix 'and co'. It's a direct sister clade to Coturnix, and also close relative of Synoicus. So it is still rather 'quail' anyhow....
 
Last edited:
SeaOtterHQ said:
This is partially because they're not as common in zoos, but I'd be more excited about a good platypus or honey badger or walrus exhibit than I would about any kind of lion or hippo exhibit.
Click to expand...
Is this a confession? I think we all feel this way except for maybe @Nile Hippo Expert. I would much rather see a platypus in a bad exhibit over a hippo in an amazing habitat.
 
Rohin said:
You would rather an animal live in inadequate conditions because it's a rarity then see a common animal live in a good enclosure?
Click to expand...
Yes and No, since this is a hypothetical question would I want this to exist no. But if it did I’d much rather see it. A bad enclosure could also mean bad viewing, lack of substrate, or even too much area.
 
I like good exhibits. I like seeing new species.

The good thing is these do not ever need to be broadly framed as mutually exclusive as they often are. We can compare specific exhibits against each other but facilities may also feature rarities in good exhibits or common species in poor accomodations.
 
USZOOfan42 said:
Is this a confession? I think we all feel this way except for maybe @Nile Hippo Expert. I would much rather see a platypus in a bad exhibit over a hippo in an amazing habitat.
Click to expand...

No don’t feel that way. I wouldn’t want to see an animal live in poor or unsuitable conditions.

I’d far rather see a wholly common animal in a great well managed space than a rarity in a bad one.

If as humans we were a bit more bothered about how animals lived in general, then, in my opinion, a good few of them wouldn’t be endangered rarities in the first place.
 
JVM said:
I like good exhibits. I like seeing new species.

The good thing is these do not ever need to be broadly framed as mutually exclusive as they often are. We can compare specific exhibits against each other but facilities may also feature rarities in good exhibits or common species in poor accomodations.
Click to expand...

Agreed. As rare as it is, I would not be excited or pleased to see a platypus in a small enclosure with no enrichment, as it is both worse for the animal and less interesting for the visitor to see it in such an unnatural habitat. Luckily it seems more and more common these days that rare species are entrusted to institutions that know how to properly care for them, such as the San Diego Zoo, Bronx Zoo, Prague Zoo, Exmoor Zoo, etc., so that no such trade-offs are necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top