Great Zoo Rivalries

06-05-2010

There was always rivalry between Berlin Zoo and London Zoo as to which had the largest number of species/specimens and therefore claimed to be the world's biggest collection. No doubt post-war feelings added to this. I don't think this rivalry exists anymore. IMHO Berlin Zoo is now miles ahead of London, not just in the number of species. London Zoo seems to have lost its way in the last 30 years.

06-05-2010

Absolutely agree, Pygathrix

London Zoo has lost a lot of its attractivity for "ordinary" zoovisitors as for zoo-freaks as well. And I think it's a shame for such a big city. I'm sure that the reasons for that are mainly economical. Less or even no money from the gouverment/city. But the City of Berlin has a huge household minus too, so Zoo and Tierpark must finance their costs mainly itself. So what does the germans do better?
The other point is that the citizens of Berlin are more involved in their Zoo (= love them more) then the Londonians does. Where is the proud of the British (zoolovers)?
Maybee I am wrong but I have the feeling, that the board of London Zoo is not brave enough to face animal rights activists. One cry of them, and London stop keeping elephants, rhinos, polar bears etc., etc.

07-05-2010

Good grief - some positivity from Red Uakari - this is extraordinary!

QUOTE=reduakari;315662]Taronga's Ocean exhibit is a huge disappointment, but "wins" in that category because (based on photos and reviews) Melbourne's is a massive step backward that looks just awful.[/QUOTE]

....oh, maybe not so extraordinary after all.

07-05-2010

....oh, maybe not so extraordinary after all.[/QUOTE]

Taking the bait:

Is there a UK-wide "rivalry" for the most mudane assemblage of slap-dash wood and chicken wire cages housing a postage-stamp collection of rare animals? Seems like there are a large number of viable contenders for this "crown"......

12-06-2012

When I think of rivalries for some reason I always think Henry Doorly and Woodland Park.

12-06-2012

Minnesota zoo and Como Park zoo
San diego zoo and Los Angeles zoo
Denver zoo and cheyenne Mountain zoo
Oakland zoo and San Francisco zoo
Maryland Zoo and Smithsonian National zoo
Franklin Park zoo and Stone zoo
Woodland Park zoo and Point Defiance zoo
Detroit zoo and Toledo zoo
Cleveland zoo and Pittsburgh zoo (even akron zoo too)

12-06-2012

How so?

Other rivalries:

-DAK and Busch Gardens
-Marineland of the Pacific and Sea World San Diego (SW later bought and closed the marineland facility)
-Brookfield and Bronx have had a rivalry in the past
-

12-06-2012

Dallas an Fort Worth have always been butting heads... It appears Dallas is coming out on top with the opening of Giants of the Savanna...

12-06-2012

Lincoln Park Zoo and Central Park Zoo I guess because both are very small and inside very large cities.

12-06-2012

I've never know those two to have any sort of rivalry.

12-06-2012

There is no rivalry between LA and San Diego. They exchange animals all the time and work cooperatively on conservation projects, and have explicitly said that they are not rivals.

I think that the same kind of relationship exists between Oakland and San Francisco.

Franklin Park and Stone zoo are run by the same management.

Woodland Park and Point Defiance have complimentary collections which suggests that there is some level of cooperation, not rivalry.

"Rivalries" like between DAK and Busch Gardens exist because they are for-profit organizations that are competing for tourist traffic. All of the zoos listed above are non-profits. There may be envies about exhibits or some such, but the concept of "rivalry" doesn't seem to have much meaning for most of these zoos.

12-06-2012

Well, not in the sense that you are using the term. But as I think I've explained, when I posted this thread two years ago I was thinking in terms of zoos which essentially compete in some respect other than merely going after the same visitors. Though that can be a component of what I'm talking about, it's not necessarily enough. Nobody could credibly say that Minnesota Zoo views Como Park as a major rival. One is a major state-run cultural institution that charges for admission, has won awards for massive exhibit complexes and I'm guessing attracts close to or over a million visitors a year. The other may also attract so many, for all I know, but only because it is free. It is, for all intents and purposes, a perfectly good but relatively limited small-budget, small-collection zoo. The two zoos share the same population base but are not truly rivals. One is playing in the major leagues, and the other is a solid college team.

At the same time, Melbourne Zoo and Taronga in Sydney are not really competing for visitors at all, at least not often. Sure, there may be the occasional overseas visitor who will visit both cities but only make time to visit one zoo, but unless they do research on which zoo has the specific species they want to see, I suspect they will go on two things. One is which fits in better with their itinerary and the other is which is regarded as Australia's elite zoo. And that's where Melbourne and Taronga, 872km apart by road, do compete. They certainly cooperate readily and effectively too, and I'm not saying that competition and rivalry would be put before the best interests of animals, species management, conservation, education or any such thing. But there is such a thing as a "friendly rivalry" too. And it's a good thing.

13-06-2012

I know there was a lot of controversy about whether keepers should go into tiger enclosures after a few keepers were killed by tigers in John Aspinall's zoos. I agreed with Doug Richardson, the then head cat keeper, that keepers shouldn't enter tiger enclosures, but some other volunteers thought they should as it increased bodning with the tigers.

I don't know if this led to London Zoo's schemes for expensive enclosures for gorillas and tigers. Personally, I think zoos should co-ordinate collections, so that any species is kept in suitable enclosures and there is not duplication of some species over many zoos, several of which are quite close together, while other species are becoming increasinly uncommon in zoos.

I think it would have been better if London Zoo's managers had just accepted that tigers and gorillas have a far better breeding record at Port Lympne and Howletts than at London. A quick look through Zootierliste will show how many species have been kept at London Zoo over the years and many of these would have had a better breeding record if they had been kept in the space currently allocated to gorillas and tigers.

If zoos accepted that they couldn't keep all the animals they wanted to keep, they could offer vouchers to provide discounts for visitors to visit other zoos that housed any species they wanted to see.

13-06-2012

Lowry Park Zoo competes with its two larger rivals in Central Florida, DAK and Busch Gardens Tampa.
I feel that Mystic Aquarium and Maritime Aquarium compete for the best aquarium in Connecticut, which Mystic wins.

14-06-2012

As an opposite: I believe I have heard or read something about that the reason why Hannover Zoo only keeps a few bird species, and why Walsrode keeps next to no mammal species (many bird parks seem to at least have a few exotic mammals here and there) is that they don't want a rivalry. Is that right?