Zoo trends that are overdone.

Also, guests like to learn personal information about the animals they see (genders, names, etc.) And it can be a learning experience to teach how long a species can live.
When I was volunteering at a sanctuary, one of the other volunteers (who was clearly much less interested in animals on a deep level) asked me what the names of the different macaws we had were. I said I didn’t know every one of them, but I could tell her what species each was. She was like “I don’t care about the species, I want their names!”. So yeah.
 
Detroit Zoo does a great job having signage about individual animals, with names, birthdays, and a fun fact or two.




Maybe in Europe these are overdone trends, but neither are particularly widespread in US zoos.
Indeed. They’re both fairly common here, especially meerkats, but not nauseating so. For example, only one zoo in my state houses meerkats (up against 4 with red pandas and ring-tailed lemurs, for a comparison) and no AZA facility here has ASCOs.
 
I don't mind repetitive exhibit concepts because, again, the average visitor doesn't go to that many different zoos (similarly, I don't mind every theme park having a scrambler ride and a carousel), but speaking of theme parks, the trend I dislike is when zoos spend a lot of money on some kind of 'virtual reality' or '4D' ride/movie/game that nonetheless looks kind of janky and outdated even when it's new compared to, say, Disney or Universal. I tend to feel like people go to zoos to see live animals and have real-life experiences and spending some of that time staring at screens feels a little sad to me.

I also think there was a little less saturation of only alcohol-related events for adults. I don't want to buy a ticket to an event that looks otherwise fun and exclusive when a large portion of the ticket price goes to unlimited beer or 'boozy bottomless brunch.' (That's different from events where alcohol is available for purchase. I don't mind that.) All of the special events that don't seem to center around alcohol seem aimed mostly or entirely at families with young kids.
 
What if it's the unusual species that is held in multiple enclosures? Personally, for a lot of taxa I think having multiple enclosures makes sense, as oftentimes this makes breeding, transfers, and social management a lot easier.
I'm talking about unusual species being kept behind the scenes, while commonly kept species are kept in multiple enclosures, such as Edinburgh having had 8 meerkat enclosures
 
I'm talking about unusual species being kept behind the scenes, while commonly kept species are kept in multiple enclosures, such as Edinburgh having had 8 meerkat enclosures
Eight meerkat enclosures if overkill, but there are a lot of cases where two or more exhibits can be really great (even for more common species). For example, in large carnivores, black rhinos, and more, having two enclosures makes breeding much easier, and in elephants having multiple enclosures is very beneficial, arguably essential, to social management depending on the structure of a herd. In many smaller species, having multiple enclosures can eliminate the need for as many transfers, in turn making it easier to breed and overall helpful to the population's sustainability.
 
Eight meerkat enclosures if overkill, but there are a lot of cases where two or more exhibits can be really great (even for more common species). For example, in large carnivores, black rhinos, and more, having two enclosures makes breeding much easier, and in elephants having multiple enclosures is very beneficial, arguably essential, to social management depending on the structure of a herd. In many smaller species, having multiple enclosures can eliminate the need for as many transfers, in turn making it easier to breed and overall helpful to the population's sustainability.
I think they meant multiple enclosures throughout the zoo.
 
I feel as if open “African Savanna” exhibits are overdone especially because most pair animals from different parts of the continent together, and don’t even live in savanna habitats at all.
Some examples:
Kudu- Forests/bushlands
Bontebok- Fynbos/bushlands
Okapi- Rainforests
It honestly feels pretty stupid to see an okapi in the middle of a grassy field with a few trees, as opposed to one in a well-planted shaded forest enclosure.
 
Ah yes, I have actually been to DAK. :p But I swear when I went it was in a forested section at the start of the safari drive?
At DAK proper, there are Okapi at the start of the Kilaminjaro Safaris - but they are mixed only with Yellow-backed Duiker. At DAK Lodge, one of their African savannas mixes Okapi in with various other African megafauna, which is what I was referring to.
 
At DAK proper, there are Okapi at the start of the Kilaminjaro Safaris - but they are mixed only with Yellow-backed Duiker. At DAK Lodge, one of their African savannas mixes Okapi in with various other African megafauna, which is what I was referring to.
I was also referring to the nearby Montgomery Zoo, which has a messy-gong show of a mixed exhibit that once had Okapi in with pygmy hippos, greater kudu, dama gazelle, Egyptian geese, ostriches, bontebok, and zebras.
 
“Madagascar” sections that are just some islands with lemurs, labeled as a Madagascar area, when the zoo *not referring to any specific* probably has other madagascar animals such as mantella or vasa parrots or tenrecs they could exhibit and make proper exhibits for the lemurs. No hate towards primate islands, I think if done properly, then they are fine. The bronx and san diego have great examples of good madagascar exhibits.

You could apply this to island native or endemic species that in a zoo, there are enough of them spread around aviaries and reptile enclosures and other exhibits that you could make an exhibit, but they are put in small enclosures.
*An example would be the madagascar crested ibis which is housed with a leopard tortoise and a fruit bat in a smal enclosure.. at the phoenix zoo*
 
Back
Top