Zoos vs Aquariums vs "World-class"

Ebirah766 said:
Monterey Bay? Of course it's world-class, you'd have to be insane to not think that
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about Monterey Bay, I said deep water not deep sea. You already listed MBA as world class and I agree. I was talking about Steinhart's collection of rare deep reef species and other oddities found nowhere else in the US. I've been surprised you hadn't already mentioned it since you're so keen on rarities.
 
Zooplantman said:
So.... a bunch of posts arguing over how "world class" this or that is but never a definition of "world class." Isn't it possible that the whole notion is a fantasy?
Click to expand...

Well, Ebirah at least has been pretty clear about his definition :p

  • It has to be an aquarium, as zoos can obviously never be world class.
  • It has to contain species which are highly unusual in captivity, and preferably ones which die as soon as possible to make room for more short-lived oddities.
  • If at all possible, it has to be Japanese as he has a bit of a fixation with that country.
  • Exhibit quality is irrelevant.

Simple as :p
 
I do wonder how world class or in general what would be good ways to establish a metric for aquaria.

Interesting hot take from me for a metric;
- Aquaria actively curating captive breeding programmes for both new species (not bred prior) and species known to be able to breed in captivity; that are not just elasmobranchs, could make a interesting pointer.
 
I feel as though the term 'world-class' reflects the popularity of an institution far more than it does the genuine quality. A world-class institution is something that nobody can call bad while maintaining a straight face, and that most people consider to be the best, or one of the best, in its field. If one wishes to call institutions world-class based on quality alone, they will have to draw a line between what is and isn't worthy of that title, which in my opinion isn't really possible to draw because of how subjective these rankings are. I think that the term is frustratingly overused. Several of my favourite zoos and aquariums are not widely considered world-class, while several that are will never come close to the top spots on my rankings, so I try to avoid using the term to describe my opinion on something, not just (but especially) regarding zoos and aquariums.

I am not going to comment on the zoos versus aquariums debate. They are both vastly different with regards to what they can (and do) achieve.
 
If we take popularity (aka generated income) of an institution as main indication of what is and isnt world class, picture becomes clearer.

Among TOP 40 zoological institutions in Europe by attendance, only 5 are aquariums and 35 are classical zoos. Here, few aquariums can be called world class simply because most of them lack income to build and run high quality/exceptional exhibits.

In Japan, TOP 40 or so zoos and aquariums enjoy very similar attendance, circa 50:50. Most visited Ueno zoo and most visited Okinawa aquarium both have 3 mio for example. But aquariums seem to generally have higher ticket prices. That gives Japanese aquariums financial advantage over zoos because they simply can afford better exhibits.
 
Kalaw said:
I feel as though the term 'world-class' reflects the popularity of an institution far more than it does the genuine quality.
Click to expand...

I would disagree here as if any facility was called ''world-class'' due to popularity yet being plagued by bad husbandry or quality across its facility then would it really be worthy to be called ''world-class''? Would it then not just be a popular facility?

I do think there is a difference between what's a popular or a ''world-class'' facility; look at the London Zoo.
Many people know about the zoo and it's quite (in)famous. But would it be worthy of the title ''world-class''? I will come with the hot take that it doesn't, not now at least, I cannot comment too much on the historical side of it as I have never witnessed that and simply only know it as a ''hoard'' back in the day that has kept ''everything'' during its lifespan so far.
But nowadays I don't think many ZooChatters would call the London Zoo ''world-class'', most certainly not when Chester Zoo exists in the country.

Going a bit closer home I feel like Artis is in a similar boat, it's old and has many exhibits out-dated and old-fashioned. To me a true eye-sore on their look would be the infamous lion habitat, which thankfully a new one is being built for, but also various other historic exhibits like the bearpits, now home to mandrills and red pandas.
Artis in the Netherlands is very well-known and popular, but the zoo itself feels nothing like a zoo like Burgers' Zoo does, it's not as refreshing and boundry-pushing. One zoo is plagued by monument sustain whilst the other has been demolishing and refurbishing its past facilities.
Ofcourse Burgers' Zoo is also a popular name, but I'd reckon within the country itself, both are in similar level of ''known'' to the public. - based on nothing but my own experience when talking with people.

Do both Artis and Burgers' Zoo deserve the title of ''world-class''?
In my opinion only Burgers' Zoo does in this case due to them always pushing for advancements, they have done revolutionary things with their ecodisplays, however don't let this cloud the judgements too much as Artis too has done some of their own achievements within the zoo-world, for example succesfully raising a vulture chick under parent hood of two male homosexual vultures, or transporting a giraffe by plane, opening up new transportation methods for the species around the globe.
However what really to me makes the difference between the two is the overall quality of the zoos exhibits and husbandry. Where in Artis you'll see lions in a small exhibits till recently or old bear pits, and not to mention the small chimpanzee cage, in Burgers' Zoo you see animals in very spacious exhibit, sure there's a few relics of the past there as well, but not on the same level as Artis.

So, should the title ''world-class'' be given to zoos who just made name for themselves due to popularity? Or should it be given to zoos based on their overall quality?

I strongly believe in the latter, despite judging quality being very subjective and to everyone it might be different.

-

I also believe this can be reflected in aquaria.
 
Ursus said:
I would disagree here as if any facility was called ''world-class'' due to popularity yet being plagued by bad husbandry or quality across its facility then would it really be worthy to be called ''world-class''? Would it then not just be a popular facility?

I do think there is a difference between what's a popular or a ''world-class'' facility; look at the London Zoo.
Many people know about the zoo and it's quite (in)famous. But would it be worthy of the title ''world-class''? I will come with the hot take that it doesn't, not now at least, I cannot comment too much on the historical side of it as I have never witnessed that and simply only know it as a ''hoard'' back in the day that has kept ''everything'' during its lifespan so far.
But nowadays I don't think many ZooChatters would call the London Zoo ''world-class'', most certainly not when Chester Zoo exists in the country.

Going a bit closer home I feel like Artis is in a similar boat, it's old and has many exhibits out-dated and old-fashioned. To me a true eye-sore on their look would be the infamous lion habitat, which thankfully a new one is being built for, but also various other historic exhibits like the bearpits, now home to mandrills and red pandas.
Artis in the Netherlands is very well-known and popular, but the zoo itself feels nothing like a zoo like Burgers' Zoo does, it's not as refreshing and boundry-pushing. One zoo is plagued by monument sustain whilst the other has been demolishing and refurbishing its past facilities.
Ofcourse Burgers' Zoo is also a popular name, but I'd reckon within the country itself, both are in similar level of ''known'' to the public. - based on nothing but my own experience when talking with people.

Do both Artis and Burgers' Zoo deserve the title of ''world-class''?
In my opinion only Burgers' Zoo does in this case due to them always pushing for advancements, they have done revolutionary things with their ecodisplays, however don't let this cloud the judgements too much as Artis too has done some of their own achievements within the zoo-world, for example succesfully raising a vulture chick under parent hood of two male homosexual vultures, or transporting a giraffe by plane, opening up new transportation methods for the species around the globe.
However what really to me makes the difference between the two is the overall quality of the zoos exhibits and husbandry. Where in Artis you'll see lions in a small exhibits till recently or old bear pits, and not to mention the small chimpanzee cage, in Burgers' Zoo you see animals in very spacious exhibit, sure there's a few relics of the past there as well, but not on the same level as Artis.

So, should the title ''world-class'' be given to zoos who just made name for themselves due to popularity? Or should it be given to zoos based on their overall quality?

I strongly believe in the latter, despite judging quality being very subjective and to everyone it might be different.

-

I also believe this can be reflected in aquaria.
Click to expand...
Sorry, perhaps I didn't word it well enough. I should clarify:

1) When I said 'popularity', I meant well-received, not regularly visited. I live in London and can confidently say that close to nobody in our city genuinely believes that London Zoo is even close to world-class, regardless of how much they know about zoos or how old they are. London is not a world-class zoo in anyone's eyes these days. Although I have never been, I imagine it is the same with Artis - tons of people visit on an annual basis (indeed, when travelling the Netherlands, quite a few people mentioned it), but very few of them genuinely believe that it is a high quality institution.

2) That isn't my personal definition of world-class, I was instead stating that it seems to be others'. On this site, the facilities that are conventionally labelled as world-class tend to receive that label as the public adore them, not just that they visit them frequently. Indeed I tend to avoid using the term entirely as it is a fundamentally flawed concept in my eyes.

Again, I apologise if my previous post was poorly worded, and I agree with most of your reply.
 
Kalaw said:
Sorry, perhaps I didn't word it well enough. I should clarify:

1) When I said 'popularity', I meant well-received, not regularly visited. I live in London and can confidently say that close to nobody in our city genuinely believes that London Zoo is even close to world-class, regardless of how much they know about zoos or how old they are. London is not a world-class zoo in anyone's eyes these days. Although I have never been, I imagine it is the same with Artis - tons of people visit on an annual basis (indeed, when travelling the Netherlands, quite a few people mentioned it), but very few of them genuinely believe that it is a high quality institution.

2) That isn't my personal definition of world-class, I was instead stating that it seems to be others'. On this site, the facilities that are conventionally labelled as world-class tend to receive that label as the public adore them, not just that they visit them frequently. Indeed I tend to avoid using the term entirely as it is a fundamentally flawed concept in my eyes.

Again, I apologise if my previous post was poorly worded, and I agree with most of your reply.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are coming from now, and I do agree.
Also to make a note back to your original post; I do agree with that the term ''world-class'' is quite overused by some.
In personal rating I never take this into account myself, more so how much I enjoyed the zoo when I visited.
 
Personally, while there are aquariums I enjoy visiting, and would like to make it to the "big two" US aquariums eventually (Shedd and Georgia), I personally find it much more difficult to support an aquarium as opposed to a traditional zoo, and it all comes down to sustainability. Most zoos, or at least accredited ones, no longer take animals from the wild- barring rescues, non-releasable rehabilitation, orphans, etc. However, most aquariums still collect fish from the wild, and captive breeding is much less common in fish as it is in other groups of animals. This brings up a rather interesting debate about the ethics of zoos and aquariums, and I find it difficult to support average smaller aquariums, whereas I regularly support smaller, lesser-known, but still accredited, zoos.
 
Neil chace said:
Personally, while there are aquariums I enjoy visiting, and would like to make it to the "big two" US aquariums eventually (Shedd and Georgia), I personally find it much more difficult to support an aquarium as opposed to a traditional zoo, and it all comes down to sustainability. Most zoos, or at least accredited ones, no longer take animals from the wild- barring rescues, non-releasable rehabilitation, orphans, etc. However, most aquariums still collect fish from the wild, and captive breeding is much less common in fish as it is in other groups of animals. This brings up a rather interesting debate about the ethics of zoos and aquariums, and I find it difficult to support average smaller aquariums, whereas I regularly support smaller, lesser-known, but still accredited, zoos.
Click to expand...
I agree,i also think that aquariums should focus more on conservation.Fish are very unproblematic creatures when to comes to strengthening wild populations.They don't damage crops and lifestock in the same way mammals and birds often can do.The now closed Aquaria vattenmuseum in Stockholm actually had a really interesting conservation project.They were located right by the water and every spring they released brown trout and salmon into the sea.In the late fall they came back to the tank they were born in thru a fish latter and spawned in the same tank they were born in.
Anyone know if any aquarium has done something similar?
 
Lota lota said:
I agree,i also think that aquariums should focus more on conservation.Fish are very unproblematic creatures when to comes to strengthening wild populations.They don't damage crops and lifestock in the same way mammals and birds often can do.The now closed Aquaria vattenmuseum in Stockholm actually had a really interesting conservation project.They were located right by the water and every spring they released brown trout and salmon into the sea.In the late fall they came back to the tank they were born in thru a fish latter and spawned in the same tank they were born in.
Anyone know if any aquarium has done something similar?
Click to expand...
The Florida Aquarium has a large coral propagation project. They have a section on the roof of the aquarium where they do this and they also have an off site location for further work with coral.
 
Lota lota said:
I agree,i also think that aquariums should focus more on conservation.Fish are very unproblematic creatures when to comes to strengthening wild populations.They don't damage crops and lifestock in the same way mammals and birds often can do.The now closed Aquaria vattenmuseum in Stockholm actually had a really interesting conservation project.They were located right by the water and every spring they released brown trout and salmon into the sea.In the late fall they came back to the tank they were born in thru a fish latter and spawned in the same tank they were born in.
Anyone know if any aquarium has done something similar?
Click to expand...
In addition to the coral restoration projects mentioned by @SwampDonkey, which there's a number of aquaria focused on, there are also some aquariums, such as New England Aquarium, working with rehabilitating sea turtles. Of course sea turtles aren't a fish, but at least it's an aquatic animal they're doing conservation work with.
 
A aquarium that jumps to mind that in my eyes does some great conservation work is the Two Oceans Aquarium in South Africa.

Why?

They have multiple rehabilitation programmes for penguins & sea turtles (various species incl. leatherbacks) but also a very unique programm with their ragged-tooth sharks.


This video shortly goes into detail about what they exactly do;
The Two Oceans Aquarium catches ragged-tooth sharks, monitors them in their facility for a few years for study, using these sharks as ambassadors for their species, tag them, and then release them back into the ocean. I do not know a single other aquarium that does this kind of program for any species. I personally find this a very beautiful way to showcase these sharks which are not particularly known to breed well in captivity while also contributing to shark conservation with the tags and surverys.

Another thing they do is that they have their own jellyfish nursery in which they raise multiple species of jellyfishes specifically dedicated to rehabilitating young leatherback sea turtles. This was brought up in a different YouTube video
around minute 5:00.

They also help out local fur seals, turtles and mola mola from entanglements and other problems.

Another thing they did recently is take in this paper argonaut. A species not really studied well in captivity. In attempt to learn more about the species. This animal is a species that washed up according to the video description.


I don't know any further of their efforts, but these alone are great exampels of programmes that aquaria can partake in.
I bet that if you look at plenty other aquaria around the world you will find similar efforts & programmes as well as many many others.
 
Neil chace said:
Personally, while there are aquariums I enjoy visiting, and would like to make it to the "big two" US aquariums eventually (Shedd and Georgia), I personally find it much more difficult to support an aquarium as opposed to a traditional zoo, and it all comes down to sustainability. Most zoos, or at least accredited ones, no longer take animals from the wild- barring rescues, non-releasable rehabilitation, orphans, etc. However, most aquariums still collect fish from the wild, and captive breeding is much less common in fish as it is in other groups of animals. This brings up a rather interesting debate about the ethics of zoos and aquariums, and I find it difficult to support average smaller aquariums, whereas I regularly support smaller, lesser-known, but still accredited, zoos.
Click to expand...

I see sustainability more as an issue with medium to large aquariums than with smaller aquariums. Many lesser known small local aquariums (like the woods hole science aquarium and the Hudson River Wetlab) catch their fish from the wild, then release them after a period of time, then catch new ones. In my opinion this is more sustainable and more ethical than what many larger aquariums often do, by catching fish to live in captivity for their entire lives.
 
ZooElephantsMan said:
I see sustainability more as an issue with medium to large aquariums than with smaller aquariums. Many lesser known small local aquariums (like the woods hole science aquarium and the Hudson River Wetlab) catch their fish from the wild, then release them after a period of time, then catch new ones. In my opinion this is more sustainable and more ethical than what many larger aquariums often do, by catching fish to live in captivity for their entire lives.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there sometimes an issue with catching an animal, establishing it in captivity, and then releasing it? I can't say what exactly the problem is, but it may have to do with re-adjusting to the wild.
 
Bengal Tiger said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there sometimes an issue with catching an animal, establishing it in captivity, and then releasing it? I can't say what exactly the problem is, but it may have to do with re-adjusting to the wild.
Click to expand...

Typically far more of an issue with mammals and birds than fish. Mammals and birds imprint and become accustomed to people, fish don't exactly work that way. Fish are regularly bred and released in fish hatcheries for example. Many aquariums do grow and release situations for large species.
 
Bengal Tiger said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there sometimes an issue with catching an animal, establishing it in captivity, and then releasing it? I can't say what exactly the problem is, but it may have to do with re-adjusting to the wild.
Click to expand...
One potential major issue can be that the fish get infected with a disease while in the aquarium and then transmit it to the wild population when released back. Hence, @Lota lota 's generalization that fish releases are unproblematic isn't entirely true...
 
Batto said:
One potential major issue can be that the fish get infected with a disease while in the aquarium and then transmit it to the wild population when released back. Hence, @Lota lota 's generalization that fish releases are unproblematic isn't entirely true...
Click to expand...

I think you tagged the wrong person.
Anyways, this is a good point. Most places I had in mind that release fish on a regular basis pull water directly from the ocean or stream they'll go back into anyways with an open system. Some however do not, and disease could easily be a problem. If fish are showing signs of illness they shouldn't be released anyways. I seem to recall hearing of some invasive fish parasites arriving in Florida with the rise of the exotic fish populations...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top