Woah whoah whoah! Your telling me that you took a trip to somewhere outside your home state without visiting a new zoo!?
Slender-snouted crocodiles.
As far as I'm aware the only reptile outside of the SSS are the komodos.
ZooChat Cup S2 Match #10: Atlanta vs San Diego Zoo (1)
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
Woah whoah whoah! Your telling me that you took a trip to somewhere outside your home state without visiting a new zoo!?
In my defence, I did visit the aquarium
. I was going to go to the zoo but it was quite far from where I was at the time, and the Atlanta subway was broken.
Yes, one person visited one conference. But what does this say about their long conservational history with the group of species? Action may have arisen from this conference, but was SDZ a part of that action? What has SDZ done in the past to show this? I never made the claim that managing individual animals was the only thing that contributed to conservation of a species. While I agree it is a big part of conservation, it would’ve been a null point anyway considering SDZ has several tortoises anyway... all grabbed from the islands with poor record keeping such that even 100 years later, they still aren’t all identified.
The San Diego Zoo has six golden mantellas and six bronze-backed mantellas. A total population of twelve mantellas isn’t even a suitable founding population for a breeding program for one species, much less flourishing assurance colonies for two.
And Zoo Atlanta, also, received Panamanian golden frog founders. So it seems they are equally matched on this species.
It’s not that SDZ having not done so is hurting them, but the fact that Zoo Atlanta has is helping themselves beat San Diego. I acknowledge the breeding programs SDZ participates in, but it is nowhere near on the scale that Zoo Atlanta has been contributing to amphibian conservation for the past decade.
Every zoo in this cup is competing against each other, vying for the top spot. A breeding program at Bronx would not make Central Park have a better chance at winning a category, if it were a competitor, despite them being managed by the same organization. The same is true here. The iguana conservation center is located on the grounds of the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, not the San Diego Zoo. It has different staff members than the San Diego Zoo. It works with different zoos than the San Diego Zoo because it participated in different breeding programs than the San Diego Zoo. Zoo Atlanta has substantive captive breeding programs on their site, but SDZG decided to put all their iguana eggs in a different basket.
Many taxonomists consider most of Eulemur to be subspecies of Eulemur fulvus. Some people need to move on from their 1930’s reptile houses and outdated taxonomy to modern times.
d1am0ndback
Well-Known Member
The debate Iv'e seen in this match up has brought to me a very interesting question. What is the purpose behind these very impressive collections?
A lot of the San Diego zoos collection seems to me like nothing more than an impressive collection. Loads of rare species but not much being done for those species besides the housing (and in many cases) breeding of them (which is a good thing!). They do have some good conservation work, but it is completely overshadowed by that of Zoo Atlanta.
Much of Atlanta's collection is there for a purpose which transcends beyond the zoo, whether that's their tortoise breeding facility (and contributions to TSA), native species programs, or amphibian conservation. This is why my vote is going to Atlanta, particularly for their efforts with amphibians. Time and time again I see Zoo Atlanta involved heavily in Panama with species such as the Panamanian golden toad, glass frogs, robber frogs, and (in the past) Rabb's treefrog. I really get the feeling that the animals in Atlanta's collection aren't merely there to fill up a collection, but are there to actively benefit their wild counterparts.
Zoo Atlanta really makes itself stand out compared to San Diego simply because it has turned itself into more than just a zoo or collection, but a force of conservation. I would have voted San Diego here, but I feel that voting San Diego because of their collection doesn't do Zoo Atlanta's very impressive work justice.
A lot of the San Diego zoos collection seems to me like nothing more than an impressive collection. Loads of rare species but not much being done for those species besides the housing (and in many cases) breeding of them (which is a good thing!). They do have some good conservation work, but it is completely overshadowed by that of Zoo Atlanta.
Much of Atlanta's collection is there for a purpose which transcends beyond the zoo, whether that's their tortoise breeding facility (and contributions to TSA), native species programs, or amphibian conservation. This is why my vote is going to Atlanta, particularly for their efforts with amphibians. Time and time again I see Zoo Atlanta involved heavily in Panama with species such as the Panamanian golden toad, glass frogs, robber frogs, and (in the past) Rabb's treefrog. I really get the feeling that the animals in Atlanta's collection aren't merely there to fill up a collection, but are there to actively benefit their wild counterparts.
Zoo Atlanta really makes itself stand out compared to San Diego simply because it has turned itself into more than just a zoo or collection, but a force of conservation. I would have voted San Diego here, but I feel that voting San Diego because of their collection doesn't do Zoo Atlanta's very impressive work justice.
Where exactly does this number come from? I just visited the zoo a few months ago and they had 92 reptile (including their 5 giant tortoises) and 6 amphibian species on-exhibit. Yeah, some might have been off-exhibit due to the time of year but San Diego is warm and sunny year-round and every enclosure was filled so I doubt this factored in that much. Obviously the also keep various species permanently off-exhibit but again I doubt this makes up over a 100 species difference. Even if it does this is the capacity of species that San Diego can exhibit, so it's not that much higher than Atlanta. I don't understand the mindset that just because one zoo has more species than another it automatically wins... Reptile Walk is absolutely incredible (no Komodo Dragon there anymore btw) but the Reptile House is below average exhibit-wise compared to SSS or MOLA or even Bronx's or Philadelphia's houses. I think Atlanta's conservation efforts are absolutely amazing and that along with the fact that their reptile house is quite possibly the best in the country showcasing species you won't see exhibited anywhere else, earns them a well-deserved victory.
~Thylo
Last edited:
In that case then next time Bronx competes I'm going to include the Prospect Park Zoo, Central Park Zoo, Queens Zoo, and the New York Aquarium as though they're one collection since they aren't competing against each other..
~Thylo
When I visited in 2014, there was a Komodo dragon in a large enclosure in the Reptile House; I don't remember it on the Reptile Walk. Were there multiple enclosures?
But Thylo, its San Diego!
That was going off what @snowleopard has said before in this thread and elsewhere. If what your saying is true, then I'm seriously considering swapping votes in favor of Atlanta. Its getting harder and harder to make a case for San Diego, something I did not see coming. It will be interesting see how the votes stack up over night, as this could be yet another close one. And thanks for the tip on the dragons, they must be beginning preparations for the new exhibit in 2020.
Yeah, I'm not going to allow that. That's some seriously flawed logic your going by. Every zoo is treated as its own and any sister facility, additional location or any other facility owned or associated with the zoo in question should have no impact on how you or anybody else votes in this game. The zoo and safari park remain separate and their conservation efforts will be separated to which place is actually putting in the work.
Also the case on my visit, a nicely-sized enclosure for juvenile Komodo Dragons but not space for adults in the Reptile Walk.
~Thylo
@pachyderm pro I take detailed notes on every species I've seen, new or not, whenever I visit a zoo. Obviously this does not account for any species I did not or those which are off-exhibit but it's pretty accurate. If memory serves I missed four reptile species at the zoo so that actually makes for 96 species being present on-exhibit. And while yes they may have the difference to make up 200 species bts but what does purpose do they really serve? The tuatara aren't in a breeding situation yet. If there are that many species bts are they serving some sort of research initiative, apart of an on-going conservation program? If they do have that many species bts then the research conducted thus far into the zoo shows us that that's not really the case for the majority of these species. So are they outreach animals? Or does the zoo just simply not have the space for them on-exhibit? If the later is true, then should we be asking ourselves what the point of keeping such an impressive collection is if over half of it isn't being used for conservation/education and isn't available for public display/education?
~Thylo
~Thylo
I just wrote a long, rambling post trying to make my points clear but in the end, it doesn't even matter.
I just won't compare conservation efforts in my votes. I'm still voting for SDZ because of the species number, the outdoor exhibits, and the integration of herps into other areas of the zoo.
I just won't compare conservation efforts in my votes. I'm still voting for SDZ because of the species number, the outdoor exhibits, and the integration of herps into other areas of the zoo.
It's everyone's personal opinion on how they decide to vote
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
I think it's worth pointing out that, in the European version, people were totally free to use their own criteria for comparing the zoos within the given category. Interestingly, conservation efforts were very rarely mentioned.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
I appreciate that this will not be the most popular response, but the “purpose“ of such a collection is, I think, the collection itself. In other words, for some of us, an enormous collection, showing a massive range of spaces, is a goal – regardless of any conservation work that may or may not be undertaken. So long as the animals within a collection are well looked after – and as far as I am aware there is no reason to think otherwise of those at San Diego – there does not, in my opinion, need to be a bigger purpose for their being maintained. Rather, how brilliant is that such a big collection should exist (whether it is, in number, closer to 100 or 200!).
I can understand and respect this kind of view on it, and I do think having a larger collection is a positive for zoos and something that encourages me to visit one. However, to offer an alternative viewpoint, I *do* think that there should be a purpose behind a collection and behind the species that zoos keep.
Part of this is just that superlatives don't particularly impress me. I wouldn't care if San Diego had 500 herp species, if 80% of them are off-exhibit and none of them are being bred for conservation or research. I'm sure it carries weight for some other people, but personally I wouldn't choose one zoo over another solely based on count.
If I remember correctly, conservation was a big theme discussed in the very first match (Minnesota v. Bronx) and then it came up again in Match 5 (Brookfield v. Miami) in regards to the pangolins. I think it just got established early on as an important factor to be considered. Personally, I think it should be of equal importance as the collection or the exhibits.
I recognize and respect that people can use whatever criteria they choose, but I agree with @ThylacineAlive that I think everyone should consider it as a factor in voting and will lead by example to encourage others to do so. To their credit, @Echobeast and @jayjds2 have both done an excellent job of showcasing the conservation work of San Diego and Atlanta, respectively. Let's not let that trove of knowledge go to waste!
I’ve explained why I don’t want to use it in my vote. If I can’t make a decision as to what zoo to pick, I’ll use conservation programs as a tiebreaker.
@jayjds2 You mentioned earlier that Zoo Atlanta's Reptile House "seems like Fort Worth's MOLA but on steroids". I have not been to Atlanta since 2008 but I toured MOLA a couple of years ago and I counted exactly 100 exhibits, 114 species of reptile/amphibian and 156 species including all animals. There are some enormous ceiling-to-floor vivariums and the huge Gharial and Saltwater Crocodile pools are outstanding. Atlanta's addition looks fantastic but judging from photos and videos it seems to not be in the same league as the Reptile House at Fort Worth. I'm not sure that there are many zoos in the world that have such a wonderful structure to house cold-blooded critters as MOLA is simply a must-see for any serious zoo enthusiast.
I used to have an online copy of the International Zoo Yearbook and I recorded a total of approximately 200 species and over 1,000 specimens of reptiles/amphibians at San Diego Zoo. However, I wouldn't be surprised if half of those totals are off-show and the Tuataras not being available for public viewing is a significant disappointment. I'm waiting on a friend to see if the latest numbers are any different but the figures that I had were from 2016. San Diego's terrariums in the old Reptile House are much larger than they might first appear and the outdoor yards for reptiles are the best of their kind on the continent. I think that the only zoo that could challenge San Diego's dominance in this particular category would be Fort Worth.
To echo the sentiments of a couple of people on this thread, I personally don't rate conservation programs as highly as others when it comes to determining the overall quality of a particular zoo. As @sooty mangabey said, "for some of us, an enormous collection, showing a massive range of species, is a goal" and I agree with that summary. Many zoo guidebooks don't even list conservation programs and the average visitor really doesn't care at all. I understand that us 'zoo nerds' do care about the conservation of species but the average amount of money spent on conservation from AZA zoos is 2% of the total budget of each facility. Even if a zoo like Atlanta spends HALF of its conservation budget on reptiles and amphibians then that is still only 1% of the total annual budget of the zoo...a paltry sum. I just finished reading the book on the link below and while the publication was hit-and-miss overall, there were loads of statistics in regards to zoos and the amount of dollars spent on conservation programs and zoos are simply not doing enough in terms of their funding for both in-situ and ex-situ programs.
https://www.amazon.ca/Ark-Beyond-Ev...d=1527795063&sr=1-1&keywords=zoo+conservation
Ranking zoos is so difficult and possibly contentious and how does one factor in all of the intangibles when it comes to reptiles and amphibians? For example:
- Saint Louis Zoo: 100 species on-show and possibly another 100 off-show (just like San Diego) in a gloriously historic Reptile House. But is that structure not modern enough for some folks? Or is it beloved because of its architecture?
- Detroit Zoo: has the great 1960s-era Reptile House and then one of the world's only all-Amphibian buildings. However, are there are enough species to satisfy everyone?
- Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo: at least 120 terrariums scattered around the zoo and my information is that Omaha has 240 species of reptile/amphibian and possibly more than any other zoo in North America. Does that make Omaha #1 or should we analyze their conservation programs too? Half of those species are off-exhibit, which is another negative.
- Dallas Zoo: 125 exhibits and a massive off-show collection.
- Los Angeles Zoo: Only 70 species of reptiles/amphibians but two superb, new, modern buildings and I've gone behind-the-scenes in both structures.
So, is Los Angeles Zoo a 'better' zoo for cold-blooded animals than Dallas? The zoo in Texas has almost double the species and therefore many zoo enthusiasts would choose that one...BUT the California zoo has a more modern pair of buildings. How to choose?
Omaha beats everyone in terms of total species, but there isn't even a Reptile House there and a lot of the herps are off-exhibit.
Each to their own when it comes to evaluating zoos...
I used to have an online copy of the International Zoo Yearbook and I recorded a total of approximately 200 species and over 1,000 specimens of reptiles/amphibians at San Diego Zoo. However, I wouldn't be surprised if half of those totals are off-show and the Tuataras not being available for public viewing is a significant disappointment. I'm waiting on a friend to see if the latest numbers are any different but the figures that I had were from 2016. San Diego's terrariums in the old Reptile House are much larger than they might first appear and the outdoor yards for reptiles are the best of their kind on the continent. I think that the only zoo that could challenge San Diego's dominance in this particular category would be Fort Worth.
To echo the sentiments of a couple of people on this thread, I personally don't rate conservation programs as highly as others when it comes to determining the overall quality of a particular zoo. As @sooty mangabey said, "for some of us, an enormous collection, showing a massive range of species, is a goal" and I agree with that summary. Many zoo guidebooks don't even list conservation programs and the average visitor really doesn't care at all. I understand that us 'zoo nerds' do care about the conservation of species but the average amount of money spent on conservation from AZA zoos is 2% of the total budget of each facility. Even if a zoo like Atlanta spends HALF of its conservation budget on reptiles and amphibians then that is still only 1% of the total annual budget of the zoo...a paltry sum. I just finished reading the book on the link below and while the publication was hit-and-miss overall, there were loads of statistics in regards to zoos and the amount of dollars spent on conservation programs and zoos are simply not doing enough in terms of their funding for both in-situ and ex-situ programs.
https://www.amazon.ca/Ark-Beyond-Ev...d=1527795063&sr=1-1&keywords=zoo+conservation
Ranking zoos is so difficult and possibly contentious and how does one factor in all of the intangibles when it comes to reptiles and amphibians? For example:
- Saint Louis Zoo: 100 species on-show and possibly another 100 off-show (just like San Diego) in a gloriously historic Reptile House. But is that structure not modern enough for some folks? Or is it beloved because of its architecture?
- Detroit Zoo: has the great 1960s-era Reptile House and then one of the world's only all-Amphibian buildings. However, are there are enough species to satisfy everyone?
- Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo: at least 120 terrariums scattered around the zoo and my information is that Omaha has 240 species of reptile/amphibian and possibly more than any other zoo in North America. Does that make Omaha #1 or should we analyze their conservation programs too? Half of those species are off-exhibit, which is another negative.
- Dallas Zoo: 125 exhibits and a massive off-show collection.
- Los Angeles Zoo: Only 70 species of reptiles/amphibians but two superb, new, modern buildings and I've gone behind-the-scenes in both structures.
So, is Los Angeles Zoo a 'better' zoo for cold-blooded animals than Dallas? The zoo in Texas has almost double the species and therefore many zoo enthusiasts would choose that one...BUT the California zoo has a more modern pair of buildings. How to choose?
Omaha beats everyone in terms of total species, but there isn't even a Reptile House there and a lot of the herps are off-exhibit.
Each to their own when it comes to evaluating zoos...
@snowleopard The way I look at it, conservation is what zoos use as their justification for being, preserving endangered species is what they claim their ultimate goal is. Yes having a massive collection is impressive and worthy of note on its own, but if over half of it is not viewable to the public then it's not like it adds much to the visitor (or zoo nerd) experience. You say the average visitor doesn't care about conservation, something which in my experience is not necessarily true, but then do they care if a zoo has 200+ species of reptiles? I'd say probably not, especially when they'll never see the majority of them. And again it's not like San Diego is using many of them for breeding or research programs, which just makes their presence frustrating for a zoo nerd since they'll likely never see them.
I think it's unfair to take the average spending and apply it to Atlanta when it's been shown very clearly that they do way more than the average. And even if their spending is only 1%, that's still going to be significantly higher than most zoos, and clearly higher than San Diego. Saving species is supposed to be the purpose of the modern zoo, it's in almost every major zoo's marketing, so it makes no sense to be to simply dismiss it. In this case it's not as though the conservation is all taking place in the field outside of the zoo anyhow, many of these programs are on-display for visitors to witness at Atlanta, especially when it comes to several of the endangered species the zoo took charge and brought into captivity themselves. Surely having a major hand in founding the assurance populations for multiple endangered species and researching into new husbandry techniques is more notable than having a big collection of animals most of which will never be seen by the visiting public?
If one wanted to look at it from an education standpoint as well, another thing zoos claim to exist for, I noted next to no education displays at San Diego for their reptiles apart from general species signage. The only one I remember is their above average display for giant tortoise and one display by the gharials featuring a cast skeleton.
As for LA v Dallas, I just visited both zoos in January and, while Dallas has a remarkable collection and a very good reptile house, LA's LAIR (which I also went bts at) also has a remarkable collection and much, much better exhibitry featuring a mix of both indoor and outdoor enclosures. Taking into consideration the fact that a lot of Dallas' species are bts while the majority of LA's are on-exhibit, had this match been between these two zoos I'd have gone with LA I think.
~Thylo
I think it's unfair to take the average spending and apply it to Atlanta when it's been shown very clearly that they do way more than the average. And even if their spending is only 1%, that's still going to be significantly higher than most zoos, and clearly higher than San Diego. Saving species is supposed to be the purpose of the modern zoo, it's in almost every major zoo's marketing, so it makes no sense to be to simply dismiss it. In this case it's not as though the conservation is all taking place in the field outside of the zoo anyhow, many of these programs are on-display for visitors to witness at Atlanta, especially when it comes to several of the endangered species the zoo took charge and brought into captivity themselves. Surely having a major hand in founding the assurance populations for multiple endangered species and researching into new husbandry techniques is more notable than having a big collection of animals most of which will never be seen by the visiting public?
If one wanted to look at it from an education standpoint as well, another thing zoos claim to exist for, I noted next to no education displays at San Diego for their reptiles apart from general species signage. The only one I remember is their above average display for giant tortoise and one display by the gharials featuring a cast skeleton.
As for LA v Dallas, I just visited both zoos in January and, while Dallas has a remarkable collection and a very good reptile house, LA's LAIR (which I also went bts at) also has a remarkable collection and much, much better exhibitry featuring a mix of both indoor and outdoor enclosures. Taking into consideration the fact that a lot of Dallas' species are bts while the majority of LA's are on-exhibit, had this match been between these two zoos I'd have gone with LA I think.
~Thylo