Financial problems are hurting this tiny zoo, which happens to be over $4 million in debt:
Fla. zoo to shut doors Monday - Florida AP - MiamiHerald.com
Fla. zoo to shut doors Monday - Florida AP - MiamiHerald.com
Gulf Breeze Zoo Zoo To Temporarily Close
- Thread starter snowleopard
- Start date
It looks The Zoo is closing permanently. It will be interesting to see what happens to the animals. I had read that their young orangutan was collateral for a loan.
Zoo comes up short | pnj.com | Pensacola News Journal
Zoo comes up short | pnj.com | Pensacola News Journal
Looks like they've got some fairly valuable (?) animals there too: orangs, gorillas, roan antelope, African Wild/Hunting Dogs, Black and Indian rhino, which could probably all be useful in a consversation programme somewhere.
Lets hope they all get snapped up by good zoos soon.
Lets hope they all get snapped up by good zoos soon.
Meaghan Edwards
Well-Known Member
Fingers crossed that all the animals end up in reputable establishments.
They currently do not have either rhino species and they have sable not roan antelope.
The two times I visited I enjoyed the zoo. The safari habitat, chimp/gorilla islands and some of the other enclosures in that part of the zoo I thought were good. Granted they were not the best cat/bear/primate but the collection was nice. I have never seen an Andean condor with a neck that was a neon yellow color until I visited. I found out that certain giraffes like to step on chicks if they enter the enclosure and that an Indian rhino can enjoy gigantic wind chimes. I never thought I would ever see lowland gorillas grazing with barasingha deer. Honestly, I felt they got a raw deal after the hurricanes hit and big zoological facilities like Audubon got more attention therefore getting more donations than NWF zoo. I am sad to see this zoo go because they had so much potential. With a few renovations it could have been one of the great Florida zoos.
The two times I visited I enjoyed the zoo. The safari habitat, chimp/gorilla islands and some of the other enclosures in that part of the zoo I thought were good. Granted they were not the best cat/bear/primate but the collection was nice. I have never seen an Andean condor with a neck that was a neon yellow color until I visited. I found out that certain giraffes like to step on chicks if they enter the enclosure and that an Indian rhino can enjoy gigantic wind chimes. I never thought I would ever see lowland gorillas grazing with barasingha deer. Honestly, I felt they got a raw deal after the hurricanes hit and big zoological facilities like Audubon got more attention therefore getting more donations than NWF zoo. I am sad to see this zoo go because they had so much potential. With a few renovations it could have been one of the great Florida zoos.
I hate to see any zoo go under, really, but... I'm also finding it awfully hard to shed tears for this place. As mentioned in a different thread, I was very much less than impressed with them on my last visit. The Alabama Gulf Coast Zoo blows them right out of the water in nearly every way, and they're no bigger.
I will be interested to see how this turns out, though.
Keep the peace(es).
I will be interested to see how this turns out, though.
Keep the peace(es).
Last edited:
I completely disagree with you. First, Gulf Coast zoo was one of the facilities that benefited from publicity after the hurricanes that Gulf Breeze did not get (i.e. "little zoo that could"). Second, the collection is by far better at Gulf breeze than Gulf coast. Compare 3 great ape species, most of the big cat species, Komodos, Hunting dogs and hippos to a handful of primates (no great apes), some generic tigers and other species that would barley be impressive at a petting zoo. Third, Gulf Breeze had at least some nice exhibits compared to all the balen cages and roadside zoo looking enclosures at Gulf Shore. In opinion there is no comparison, because Gulf Breeze had the collection they just needed better enclosures. Gulf Coast still needs the collection and better exhibits.
Agreeing to disagree?
We're probably going to agree to disagree, then, and I suspect it's because our standards for calling a zoo "better" or "worse" than another are very different.
When I look at any zoo in terms of overall quality, I'm looking at a lot more than whether they got a bunch of free publicity, the variety and quantity of species in their collection, and quality of enclosures. I'm also looking very hard at how the animals react to their surroundings, including the keepers and staff, and how said staff react to them.
In short, I'm looking, harder than anything else, at the quality of care the animals are getting.
Using that set of references, I found some serious problems at the Gulf Breeze zoo. These same problems were consistent across widely-spaced visits over a five-year period, so I have no reason to believe they were flukes. They included:
--Utter lack of interest, on the part of the big cats at least, in what was going on in their environment. This included monotonous pacing behavior, back and forth across the same short-distance spot.
--In the case of their leopard, not only was the enclosure positively microscopic but there was actually a visible rut across the front, just behind the bars, where the cat had spent most of its time pacing.
--Nothing I could see in the way of enrichment within the cat enclosures. Where the Gulf Coast zoo offered their cats boomer balls, empty cable reels, and similar toys, I saw nothing of the sort at Gulf Breeze.
--A Harris hawk left completely alone, in its enclosure, with no jesses or leash. The lack of such could be explained if this was a breeding female, but if that were the case there would be a male with her AND the enclosure would not have been on public display.
Harris hawks are social. In fact, they are the only known social raptor. It's downright criminal to keep one and not provide regular contact and exercise, through manning and flight demos respectively, and for that you need the bird to have jesses and leash.
This bird was probably the most neurotic I had ever seen, displaying a threat posture to ANYone who came within 20 feet of her mews, and that's in no way normal for a healthy Harris. I could only conclude no one at the zoo knew (or cared) about the use of proper falconry practices.
--Even putting that aside, I was not pleased with the condition of their other raptors either. Dull expressions, sitting absolutely still, no apparent interest in anything around them. If I saw birds in that condition anywhere else, I'd be asking the owners if they'd contacted a veterinarian!
--This last point is arguable, as any keeper is going to be pretty busy, but it seemed awfully hard to get a straight answer to any serious questions about the animals from just about anyone. The keeper I asked about the raptors had little knowledge of them at best, and gave inaccurate information instead of simply saying she didn't know.
I found that, for any type of serious question or information, one was usually referred straight to supervisory level. Supervisory keepers usually have plenty to do without having to field questions from the public. This strikes me as poor management.
Now, let's be fair and put the Gulf Coast zoo up against that same scale. First off, and with reference to your comments about the balen cages, keep in mind this is a zoo in transition. They are expected to move to a completely new location and facility in the next year or two, so why would they look at replacing enclosures at the current location when they may not be planning to re-use them at the new?
Second, on their cats: Intense interest in EVERYthing going on around them (well, except when they're asleep of course), and no sign of ANY pacing behavior whatsoever (outside of the usual anticipatory stuff near feeding times). During our last visit, my wife and I watched one of the tigers play-stalking one of the landscape crew, who was working on the other side of the enclosure fence. You don't see that kind of thing in cats who pace.
On collection variety and quantity: Their current location is simply not big enough to do everything they want to do along those lines. My wife and I have spoken with senior staff about this very subject. Expansion is in the works, but it will take relocation to the new spot and TIME, not to mention funds. Be patient!
On communication: I always felt like I could ask the keeper staff at the Gulf Coast zoo just about any question, and get an accurate and informative answer. No hedging, no guessing, no "I -think- they do it this way," just a straight answer.
I'm sorry if you still disagree, but, in my eyes, the Gulf Breeze zoo would have needed quite a few metric tons of hard work and TLC, even if they hadn't had to close, to come close to the core quality of AGCZ.
May all the Gulf Breeze zoo's animal residents find good homes.
Happy travels.
We're probably going to agree to disagree, then, and I suspect it's because our standards for calling a zoo "better" or "worse" than another are very different.
When I look at any zoo in terms of overall quality, I'm looking at a lot more than whether they got a bunch of free publicity, the variety and quantity of species in their collection, and quality of enclosures. I'm also looking very hard at how the animals react to their surroundings, including the keepers and staff, and how said staff react to them.
In short, I'm looking, harder than anything else, at the quality of care the animals are getting.
Using that set of references, I found some serious problems at the Gulf Breeze zoo. These same problems were consistent across widely-spaced visits over a five-year period, so I have no reason to believe they were flukes. They included:
--Utter lack of interest, on the part of the big cats at least, in what was going on in their environment. This included monotonous pacing behavior, back and forth across the same short-distance spot.
--In the case of their leopard, not only was the enclosure positively microscopic but there was actually a visible rut across the front, just behind the bars, where the cat had spent most of its time pacing.
--Nothing I could see in the way of enrichment within the cat enclosures. Where the Gulf Coast zoo offered their cats boomer balls, empty cable reels, and similar toys, I saw nothing of the sort at Gulf Breeze.
--A Harris hawk left completely alone, in its enclosure, with no jesses or leash. The lack of such could be explained if this was a breeding female, but if that were the case there would be a male with her AND the enclosure would not have been on public display.
Harris hawks are social. In fact, they are the only known social raptor. It's downright criminal to keep one and not provide regular contact and exercise, through manning and flight demos respectively, and for that you need the bird to have jesses and leash.
This bird was probably the most neurotic I had ever seen, displaying a threat posture to ANYone who came within 20 feet of her mews, and that's in no way normal for a healthy Harris. I could only conclude no one at the zoo knew (or cared) about the use of proper falconry practices.
--Even putting that aside, I was not pleased with the condition of their other raptors either. Dull expressions, sitting absolutely still, no apparent interest in anything around them. If I saw birds in that condition anywhere else, I'd be asking the owners if they'd contacted a veterinarian!
--This last point is arguable, as any keeper is going to be pretty busy, but it seemed awfully hard to get a straight answer to any serious questions about the animals from just about anyone. The keeper I asked about the raptors had little knowledge of them at best, and gave inaccurate information instead of simply saying she didn't know.
I found that, for any type of serious question or information, one was usually referred straight to supervisory level. Supervisory keepers usually have plenty to do without having to field questions from the public. This strikes me as poor management.
Now, let's be fair and put the Gulf Coast zoo up against that same scale. First off, and with reference to your comments about the balen cages, keep in mind this is a zoo in transition. They are expected to move to a completely new location and facility in the next year or two, so why would they look at replacing enclosures at the current location when they may not be planning to re-use them at the new?
Second, on their cats: Intense interest in EVERYthing going on around them (well, except when they're asleep of course), and no sign of ANY pacing behavior whatsoever (outside of the usual anticipatory stuff near feeding times). During our last visit, my wife and I watched one of the tigers play-stalking one of the landscape crew, who was working on the other side of the enclosure fence. You don't see that kind of thing in cats who pace.
On collection variety and quantity: Their current location is simply not big enough to do everything they want to do along those lines. My wife and I have spoken with senior staff about this very subject. Expansion is in the works, but it will take relocation to the new spot and TIME, not to mention funds. Be patient!
On communication: I always felt like I could ask the keeper staff at the Gulf Coast zoo just about any question, and get an accurate and informative answer. No hedging, no guessing, no "I -think- they do it this way," just a straight answer.
I'm sorry if you still disagree, but, in my eyes, the Gulf Breeze zoo would have needed quite a few metric tons of hard work and TLC, even if they hadn't had to close, to come close to the core quality of AGCZ.
May all the Gulf Breeze zoo's animal residents find good homes.
Happy travels.
Last edited:
I agree with most of what you said about those specific enclosures. To be honest I don't even remember any birds of prey except the condors. What I still don't agree with is if the Gulf Breeze zoo was given the same publicity (essentially a show all about Gulf Breeze) as Gulf Shore they would have been able to fix some of the problems that you stated. I agree overall that quality of care is important and every zoo should at least do the minimum but as a visitor I am looking at enclosures and collection mainly. I strongly believe that Gulf Breeze was "screwed" by a number events and its not fair to put down a zoo that is putting whatever they can into keeping it a float. And it has been like that for years now. Granted if some of the enclosures were subpar something should be done, if its possible. If you are in the zoo field, you know how difficult it is to place animals in other facilities, so it is not as easy as just moving them out. Having worked at a few places and visiting more zoos then I can remember, I realize how difficult it is to improve when there is not enough money coming in. Talking to some of the staff at Gulf Breeze I got the sense that they were just trying to do what the could with very little resources. Regarding Gulf Shore, they may be in "transition" but the same could be said about Gulf Breeze. If the money started coming in I am positive the problems both you and I have with Gulf Breeze would have been corrected. I know all this wont change your mind but I get the sense you wanted to just write off the zoo because of what you saw (a financially flawed facility), not what it could have been.
These tiny zoos that are struggling year-to-year just to get by are tough to shed a tear for when they permanently close. I am well aware of the troubles of getting rid of animals and ripping down facilities, but so often the little zoos and wildlife parks that dot the North American landscape do nothing but struggle financially. The animals are almost always in subpar enclosures, and years of fundraising can only bring about the occasional new exhibit. What is the point in barely surviving as the years roll on by? Send the animals to much more financially stable establishments, and close these puny places down as it is often better for all concerned.
What snowleopard said...
He has a gift for summing things up so well. ;-)
In any case, I never saw Gulf Breeze as being in transition. They never, that I know of, had a new facility under construction as AGCZ does. The problems, as I mentioned, appeared to be consistent year after year, even before the hurricanes (my first visit was in 2004).
It wasn't the financial flaws that turned me off. My first visit was actually fairly nice (with the exception of the Harris hawk, which I did comment on to staff at the time), and I did indeed see potential in the place. It was the later-observed, very obvious flaws in animal care, particularly with their raptors, which went uncorrected and which could have been so easily corrected without any real financial outlay (maybe a tiny bit for better diet, though I have no idea what they were feeding).
As for the cats -- If the zoo could not afford decent enclosures, and they knew beyond any doubt there was no hope of improvement, they should have sent them off to a place better equipped to care for them.
You say, as a visitor, you're only looking at the enclosures and collections. I say that seems a narrow view at best when there are so many other factors contributing to a zoo's quality. I would encourage you to look at other factors beyond those two, and I would add in a broader sense that it's long past time the general public started wising up enough to look at them as well.
Given our culture's apparent laziness and narcissism, though, I'm not holding out much hope it'll happen en masse any time soon.
You're right -- I'm not changing my mind about the place. It just may not be for the reasons you initially thought.
Happy travels.
He has a gift for summing things up so well. ;-)
In any case, I never saw Gulf Breeze as being in transition. They never, that I know of, had a new facility under construction as AGCZ does. The problems, as I mentioned, appeared to be consistent year after year, even before the hurricanes (my first visit was in 2004).
It wasn't the financial flaws that turned me off. My first visit was actually fairly nice (with the exception of the Harris hawk, which I did comment on to staff at the time), and I did indeed see potential in the place. It was the later-observed, very obvious flaws in animal care, particularly with their raptors, which went uncorrected and which could have been so easily corrected without any real financial outlay (maybe a tiny bit for better diet, though I have no idea what they were feeding).
As for the cats -- If the zoo could not afford decent enclosures, and they knew beyond any doubt there was no hope of improvement, they should have sent them off to a place better equipped to care for them.
You say, as a visitor, you're only looking at the enclosures and collections. I say that seems a narrow view at best when there are so many other factors contributing to a zoo's quality. I would encourage you to look at other factors beyond those two, and I would add in a broader sense that it's long past time the general public started wising up enough to look at them as well.
Given our culture's apparent laziness and narcissism, though, I'm not holding out much hope it'll happen en masse any time soon.
You're right -- I'm not changing my mind about the place. It just may not be for the reasons you initially thought.
Happy travels.
Last edited:
But we're not talking about some small roadside zoo that was struggling, we are talking about a large zoo that was AZA accredtited three years ago. Just before the hurricanes they were expanding the reptile exhibits and had new cat enclosures in the foreseeable future but two hurricanes destroyed the chances of completing those plans. Add in the deaths (some where preventable), and the fact they were scammed out of quite a bit money last year, trying to get the money to stay open this zoo got a raw deal.
The Ivan hit in 2004. Was your visit before or after the hurricane. As I replied to Snowleopard, not only were the cat enclosures getting an upgrade they were in the middle of adding Dragon World (which ended being just the komodo and the iguanas) and other reptile exhibits including Big Snake pavillion. They were on their way up until Ivan and Dennis. Zoos are about entertainment 1st everything else 2nd. We go to zoos to be entertained. What pleases me is a nice enclosure with a diverse collection of animals. I might have certain other quams or dislikes about a facility but those two are my main focus and I don't need to expand my view. If you want to bash a zoo that had bad luck, as in two hurricanes hit them, thats your deal.
@loxodonta: you have a great point in regard to the two hurricanes, as that is an unfortunate set of circumstances that has now contributed to the demise of this zoo. I only hope that all of the animals and keepers find positions elsewhere.
I agree fully.
It was before. Well before. Early that year, in fact.
And you're not, apparently, reading what I've posted in detail. With apologies for 'raising my voice,' as it were, please note:
THE ZOO HAD PROBLEMS EVEN IN 2004, BEFORE IVAN. THOSE PROBLEMS WERE PERSISTENT AND CONSISTENT UP THROUGH 2009.
I'm not bashing the place for "bad luck." I'm bashing them because they showed no apparent interest in correcting problems which could have been easily and cheaply corrected DESPITE ANY HURRICANE. Said hurricanes were, I think, nothing more than a contributing factor to the demise of a zoo which was already faltering.
Is that now clear enough for you? I will say I agree with snowleopard in my hopes that all the zoo's residents, and their keepers, find good homes and gainful employment elsewhere.
As for your assertion that zoos are about "entertainment first, everything else second," I thank you for a chuckle because that's one of the sillier things I've heard this year. If that were indeed the case, I think every zoo in the States would probably conduct themselves much like Sea World.
The vast majority of zoos I've been to consider their animals first, keepers second, everything else third. They also do a very nice job, for the most part, of BALANCING entertainment and education. The Woodland Park Zoo's raptor show is a great example.
I'm sorry you choose not to look further than the surface when visiting any given zoo. That is, in your words, "your deal," but I don't think you have any idea what you're missing in the process.
I just realized, as well, this is showing signs of turning into a flame war. I have no interest in pursuing such, nor do I think the board's rules would allow it even if I did.
With that in mind, it appears my first guess was right. We've agreed to disagree. I'm going to leave it at that, and make this my last word on the topic.
And you're not, apparently, reading what I've posted in detail. With apologies for 'raising my voice,' as it were, please note:
THE ZOO HAD PROBLEMS EVEN IN 2004, BEFORE IVAN. THOSE PROBLEMS WERE PERSISTENT AND CONSISTENT UP THROUGH 2009.
I'm not bashing the place for "bad luck." I'm bashing them because they showed no apparent interest in correcting problems which could have been easily and cheaply corrected DESPITE ANY HURRICANE. Said hurricanes were, I think, nothing more than a contributing factor to the demise of a zoo which was already faltering.
Is that now clear enough for you? I will say I agree with snowleopard in my hopes that all the zoo's residents, and their keepers, find good homes and gainful employment elsewhere.
As for your assertion that zoos are about "entertainment first, everything else second," I thank you for a chuckle because that's one of the sillier things I've heard this year. If that were indeed the case, I think every zoo in the States would probably conduct themselves much like Sea World.
The vast majority of zoos I've been to consider their animals first, keepers second, everything else third. They also do a very nice job, for the most part, of BALANCING entertainment and education. The Woodland Park Zoo's raptor show is a great example.
I'm sorry you choose not to look further than the surface when visiting any given zoo. That is, in your words, "your deal," but I don't think you have any idea what you're missing in the process.
I just realized, as well, this is showing signs of turning into a flame war. I have no interest in pursuing such, nor do I think the board's rules would allow it even if I did.
With that in mind, it appears my first guess was right. We've agreed to disagree. I'm going to leave it at that, and make this my last word on the topic.
Last edited:
But you said: "My first visit was actually fairly nice (with the exception of the Harris hawk, which I did comment on to staff at the time), and I did indeed see potential in the place." and also your 1st visit was in 2004. HURRICANE IVAN HIT IN SEPTEMBER 2004, how far ahead did you visit? Unfortunately, it appears YOU do not read YOUR own post in great detail.
If you don't think zoos are for entertainment purposes 1st everything else 2nd you really don't know what a zoo is. Zoos are around to make money and to provide entertainment. Why do you think the exist? Im the one chuckling if you think there is another main reason zoo started and continue to exist today. And like I said a thousands times, if a zoo had the money they would go towards being a Seaworld, DAK, Busch and Columbus. They would be retarded not to.
I not trying to start a war but you completely ignore the fact the zoo was accredited and on its way until acts of god prevented that. Honestly, Im done with this cause I sick of people not looking at the big picture and just focusing on a narrow view.
Zoo to reopen in 2010 | breeze, gulf, reopen - News - Northwest Florida Daily News
The zoo, under its 3 management in the past 6 years, is going to open to the public in 2010.
The zoo, under its 3 management in the past 6 years, is going to open to the public in 2010.