Zoo "Confessions"
- Thread starter birdsandbats
- Start date
Van Beal
Well-Known Member
I write from the future.
How the mystery of Winston Churchill's dead platypus was finally solved
It seems like this anecdote is untrue….
The animal in question probably died of heatstroke.
But still, doesn’t make subjection of bright lights in this species a good idea !!
It was not until I was a teenager that I learned that captive axolotls are almost as common as the water that they dwell in. When I was a kid I briefly had an axolotl as a pet (it was returned to the pet shop when I lost interest in it), but I never met anyone else who had one, so for years I assumed that captive axolotls were rare.
Zhao yun
Well-Known Member
When I went to the Paris Zoo, I was trying to locate the buntings and Cardinals in the greenhouse. Eventually, after trying for about half an hour, I started getting gradually more annoyed. At the peak of my desperation and annoyance, I ended up doing something pretty cringeworthy. I put on my best Phantom voice and said, "sing, my angel of music". Said birds were not impressed, considering they didn't end up showing up either way. So yes that's just a dumb zoo confession.
WufflePenguins
Member
I never go to the proboscis monkey enclosure in Singapore zoo.
Not because i have beef with proboscis monkeys, but the exhibit is chock-full of mosquitoes, and I have huge beef with mosquitoes
Not because i have beef with proboscis monkeys, but the exhibit is chock-full of mosquitoes, and I have huge beef with mosquitoes
GodzillaLover04
Active Member
I got one, but I wished there was a zoo, somewhere out there in the world, one, that has Elephants (African or Asian; or both), but no Tigers or Lions, or Giraffes, or even Rhinos. A Zoo like Buttonwood Park Zoo before the Master Plan (which includes Tigers). If there is a zoo like that, it would be so unique. I don't hate Tigers, Lions, Giraffes or Rhinos, though.
Nile Hippo Expert
Well-Known Member
The Commerford Travelling Petting Zoo in Connecticut has an elephant but no Tigers, Lions, Giraffes or Rhinos.
GodzillaLover04
Active Member
Looked it up, and yeah... Not really good at it's animal welfare. Not a proper zoo.
Not a current zoo as it closed in 1999, but Cricket St Thomas Wildlife Park in the UK did. I visited several times in the 80s and early 90s when I was growing up. They had Asian elephants but never held lions, tigers, giraffes or rhinos.
The other major species I can remember in addition to elephants are leopards, jaguars, zebras, camels and sea lions.
GodzillaLover04
Active Member
Wow. Sad it closed down.
DCzootripper
Well-Known Member
it doesn't matter to me how big the enclosure is, if it is bad for the animal it is bad
Van Beal
Well-Known Member
I nearly said Rosamond Gifford in Syracuse... only to remember they have an Amur Tiger.
GodzillaLover04
Active Member
They used to have Lions too. But it doesn't have to be strictly here in the U.S. or Canada.
Van Beal
Well-Known Member
Little confession regarding Toronto.
So they have this habitat across from their Indian Rhinoceros called the “Lemur Summer Home,” which once housed Lion-tailed Macaque and since the avian flu outbreak, has been acting as the home for the Indian Peafowl who can no longer free roam the zoo.
Safe to say that, as much as I think the zoo’s Ring-tailed Lemurs and Gray-crowned Cranes should have access to outdoor space, I think sacrificing their access to it if the trade-off is keeping the peafowl is not the biggest price to pay, especially seeing as the space likely won’t exist long-term if the newest master plan goes well.
So they have this habitat across from their Indian Rhinoceros called the “Lemur Summer Home,” which once housed Lion-tailed Macaque and since the avian flu outbreak, has been acting as the home for the Indian Peafowl who can no longer free roam the zoo.
Safe to say that, as much as I think the zoo’s Ring-tailed Lemurs and Gray-crowned Cranes should have access to outdoor space, I think sacrificing their access to it if the trade-off is keeping the peafowl is not the biggest price to pay, especially seeing as the space likely won’t exist long-term if the newest master plan goes well.
GodzillaLover04
Active Member
I think in my opinion Toronto Zoo is a bit overrated, even if I never visited it. They no longer have that cool monorail. Plus they no longer have Pandas or Elephants (the latter are my comfort animals). My next confession is that I don't really like the concept of zoos "phasing out" certain species.
Some people [particularly on social media] are getting too harsh on judging exhibit design.
Constructive criticism is good and I try to include it in my reviews wherever possible. Saying an exhibit is not groundbreaking or innovative or worth a road trip is completely valid. Saying an exhibit is fine or good but not personally impressive is a valid opinion to have. There are great exhibits that are not to my personal taste.
That all said, treating an exhibit that is not as good as it could be or not among the best in the country as if it is automatically behind "basic standards of care" is hideously excessive and sounds like activist speak. It's the kind of language that disguises personal opinion as if it is an objective statement with implications about animals' treatment and welfare. You can say you're disappointed and that it's your opinion, that's fine. Everyone has an opinion. No need to dress your opinion up as if the animals are being mistreated because you'd like a few more trees or a little more room or something.
Not every exhibit in the country needs to be Omaha-level and just because one of the few wealthier zoos manages some incredible innovations doesn't mean every zoo needs to have it tomorrow or be viewed as behind the times. Not every zoo has the same advantages or access to the same resources.
The chief purpose of a new exhibit should be to advance the welfare of animals at the zoo it is designed for, and to enrich guests' knowledge of the animal, and if it is an objective improvement on a previous exhibit or the facility's overall standards and that should still be considered a net positive, even if the final product is not Omaha-level or exciting enough to cause people to book cross-country flights.
Constructive criticism is good and I try to include it in my reviews wherever possible. Saying an exhibit is not groundbreaking or innovative or worth a road trip is completely valid. Saying an exhibit is fine or good but not personally impressive is a valid opinion to have. There are great exhibits that are not to my personal taste.
That all said, treating an exhibit that is not as good as it could be or not among the best in the country as if it is automatically behind "basic standards of care" is hideously excessive and sounds like activist speak. It's the kind of language that disguises personal opinion as if it is an objective statement with implications about animals' treatment and welfare. You can say you're disappointed and that it's your opinion, that's fine. Everyone has an opinion. No need to dress your opinion up as if the animals are being mistreated because you'd like a few more trees or a little more room or something.
Not every exhibit in the country needs to be Omaha-level and just because one of the few wealthier zoos manages some incredible innovations doesn't mean every zoo needs to have it tomorrow or be viewed as behind the times. Not every zoo has the same advantages or access to the same resources.
The chief purpose of a new exhibit should be to advance the welfare of animals at the zoo it is designed for, and to enrich guests' knowledge of the animal, and if it is an objective improvement on a previous exhibit or the facility's overall standards and that should still be considered a net positive, even if the final product is not Omaha-level or exciting enough to cause people to book cross-country flights.
Last edited:
