Henry Doorly Zoo (Omaha, NE) » Henry Doorly Zoo

14-11-2008

Can't blame an author for who quotes him or how. My book for school kids on plants, symbiotic relationships, etc. has been quoted by evangelists for their Creationist crap. Not ever my intention or belief, but what can you do? Referring to David as a zoo-hater (is that what you meant?) is simply ridiculous

14-11-2008

This is an intriguing thread, and even though it has dissolved into a few different topics I was impressed by reduakari's top ten list. I adore lists and statistics, and so I have to admit to having read the list through three times before deciding how to respond. A number of people emailed me their North American top 10 lists around May of this year in preparation for my summer road trip. I've never publicly released any of those lists because some people work in zoos or deal with the zoo world and requested anonymity under those circumstances. There are prominent authors and zoo keepers who have sent me their lists and I'll never release them on here unless at first authorized. One thing that would be cool would be to create an updated top ten thread where everyone simply lumps in their personal choices. That way we could all see the trends that emerge from our own tastes.

Looking at reduakari's list and comparing it to my own (which excluded aquariums) it seems as if we are in very close agreement. I loved the descriptions as it lent validity to the process. If I were to include aquariums then our lists would be almost identical, but the zoos would be shifted around into different positions. San Diego is #1 in my book, but it's cool to see truly great institutions like Shedd and Monterey Bay combined with the zoos. I'm a huge fan of exhibitry, and that's why I agree with reduakari's decision to have both the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum and Woodland Park Zoo in the top ten. The fact that many moons ago David Hancocks was the director of each of those has no bearing on my decision-making process as I also happen to believe that Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo is a top 5 contender. After my jaunt through Florida next month I will have seen 18 of reduakari's top 21 zoos/aquariums, and have little to complain about as far as his reasoning is concerned.

Everyone has to listen to the opinion of others with respect and courtesy on this site. I firmly believe that if someone has not visited a particular zoo then they cannot honestly rank it in comparison to ones that they have spent half a day walking around in. An individual can read a hundred books on a place but actually being there in the flesh is a whole different ballgame. I have been to the majority of really top-class zoos and aquariums in North America, but I'm also the first to admit that there are plenty of good ones still awaiting a future visit and loads of people who have been to far more zoos than myself. For example I have never visited the St. Louis, North Carolina or Oakland zoos, and I stated that when I made my top ten list and thus they didn't have a chance of appearing on it. I'm curious as hell to see whether Jacksonville, DAK or Miami Metrozoo will compete with the heavyweights of the zoo world after my December travels. Also, ranking zoos is fluid. I know a handful of people that have both the Minnesota and Oklahoma City zoos in their top 10, but would those zoos really have been there without 2008's "Russia's Grizzly Coast" and 2007's "Oklahoma Trails"? One set of habitats can elevate a zoo into a higher status amongst zoo nerds like us.

14-11-2008

ZooPlantman,
You lose a lot of good devout people with "Creationist's crap".

15-11-2008

Having only been to one zoo on your list, and that zoo not being san diego, i shouldn't really be commenting but i heard that the san diego zoo was one of the top three zoos in the US for selling their stock on the black market with a rate of 79%. Surely this is not a zoo which does "Admirable conservation".

Don't believe everything "I heard"
15-11-2008

The key words are "I heard". Most of the time, such things are false, as I believe these charges are.

"I heard"
15-11-2008

"I heard" this from 'Zoo - A History of Zoological Gardens in the West' (page 280), it is not simply an unconfirmed piece of gossip that "i heard" on the grape-vine. As has already been discussed on this thread, books can be misleading in which case i appologise for the misinformation however i have always found this recent edition factual rather than oppinionated. I fully accept that i have never been to the san diego zoo and know very little about its dealings, legitimate or otherwise. I also recognise that i am a zoo novice in comparison to yourself and respect that if you write something on the subject, in this case that the accusations are unfair, you are most probably right - i just wanted to say that the source of the said statement was legitimate; not a piece of gossip that i wrote as i could think of nothing else to say.

15-11-2008

The San Diego Zoo is my personal favorite zoo and it has a bundle of greta conservation programs and exhibits. My personal favorite is the Ituri Forest.

15-11-2008

I didn't mean to hit you hard. Just to point out that the San Diego Zoo is a pretty reputable organization and thus it's awfully hard for me to believe they'd be dealing with the "black market".

15-11-2008

In the 1970s and 80s the zoo did a lot of transactions with private dealers, and some of the animals involved ended up in "canned hunt" private ranches in Texas. This was well documented in Alan Green's Animal Underworld.

The Zoo has a long history of working with private breeders, particularly in the reptile, hoofstock and bird collections. About 10 years ago one of the Zoo's Assistant Curators of Reptiles was convicted of illegal trade in endangered species on the side.

A large portion of the extensive hoofstock collection recently disassembled to accommodate 'Elephant Odyssey' has been moved into the hands of private collectors. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but does open the zoo up to potential criticism.

The conservation work of the Zoo that I praised in an earlier post is focused more on reproductive research and field conservation. The management of the captive population under the control of SD Zoological Society is a different matter. In this arena, SDZS has always been big enough to play by their own set of rules.

15-11-2008

And about ten years ago there was a scandal affecting a great many AZA accredited zoos about how they handled "excess" animals. Whether it was unethical or not is for someone higher to decide, but it was serious enough (and San Diego was involved) and well enough documented to cause some serious reforms and embarrassment.

But isn't there dirty laundry in everyone's closet?
Will we judge anyone based on that?
Cannot even formidable conservation organizations also be doing some pretty nasty things?
It's never so clean. In fact , you can't do international conservation without getting your hands pretty dirty.

29-12-2008

The zoo has a new and updated website:

Home | Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo

29-12-2008

Cool! Thanks for the link!

29-12-2008

The new website is a thousand times better than the old one, but I still am not much of a fan of the actual zoo map. The links to all of the exhibits are fascinating and informative, and the organized and detailed history link is intriguing as it shows how the zoo has evolved over time. Omaha has the world's largest indoor rainforest, the world's largest desert dome, the world's largest nocturnal house, the world's largest indoor swamp, the world's second largest free-flight aviary, excellent gorilla and orangutan exhibits, etc... This zoo has some major flaws (big cat complex, bear grottoes) but is easily one of the 5 best in North America. I can't wait for the skyfari ride, Madagascar, Arctic and elephant habitats that are to be built in the near future.

31-12-2008

Repeating my opinion about Omaha's zoo would be a waste of time for all of us J

ust a "short" remark: I do support a lot of the points of critique by reduakari (although I can't support his critique about the Omaha in general; I have been to much worse places, and most of its residents seemed to be nice people). Positive things about the zoo: There are some neat immersion elements for visitors, the species collection is remarkable, I acknowledge Le Simmon's personal efforts and I happen to know and like some people of the zoo staff, the majority of the animals seems to do fine etc etc. Nevertheless, I think that there is quite a bunch of things to nag about at HD-mainly for the benefit of the animals kept there.

ANyhuis asks us to be open-minded; but being open-minded doesn't have to mean to carry blinkers, to be blind to obvious flaws and impervious to advice and constructive criticism. Trying to devaluate reduakari as a "negative zoohater" because he stated what was obvious to many international zoo and wildlife veterinarians during the AAZV/AAWV conference at Omaha 2005 was a shot in one's own foot...I'm glad this has been benignly solved, and I hope such a jawing match won't happen again.
The fear of PETA shouldn't prompt pro-zoo people into tearing lumps out of each other due to minor dissension.

And btw: I also have seen various husbandries both before and behind the scenes in San Diego that were far from optimal for the animals held within. Does that make me into a "negative zoohater", too? Or maybe I'm a bit more realistic, experienced and interested in caring for the well-being of the animals...And believe it or not: I nevertheless think that SD is a pretty good zoo.

David Hancocks might have about-faced his opinions about zoos in his late years; his bad luck and loss. But his previous ideas in regard to exhibit design and his points of critique mentioned in regard to Omaha and other zoos are nevertheless, if objectively regarded, often still valid, whether you read them before your visit to Omaha or afterwards. And what's the constant "bible" reference about? Just causes bad blood...
Too bad I can't come to Omaha in the next future; I'd really love to visit the exhibits bit by bit with you in person, @ANyhuis and @blackrhino (also behind the scenes)-maybe then you could see what reduakari, I and even Hancocks (!) have to nag about, and maybe I could try to understand your all-too positive viewpoint-seriously! About breeding-see my remarks regarding stress-induced hypersexuality.

Of course people have different opinions. But there are some criteria in regard to animal husbandry in zoos that can be measured and observed objectively-no matter what your current "zoo opinion/mood" is like at the moment. We should all agree that a drowned owl in an exhibit, a pair of cougars endlessly pacing indoors on a tiny bare rockshelf, exhibits filled to the rim with animals (Kingdom of the Night) or a dozen of desert monitors squeezed together in a 4 feet long tiny exhibit aren't examples of modern, animal-adequate husbandries, are they? And starting from that, one might reconsider and think about some of the husbandries he/she considered "flawless" before...This might lead some all too zoo-positive zoochat members to another, more realistic viewpoint when looking at zoo exhibits and zoo husbandry in general and sharpen your eyes for real flaws.

'There is a big difference between accepting everything as great just because it's a zoo, and acknowledging that there are things that could and should be improved.'
Spot on. If we just consider the current situation as "perfect" and remain deaf to constructive critique, there will be no improvement. A shame, especially for the animals involved!

@blackrhino: So a single zookeeper's opinion is enough ground for you to generalize about pygmy hippos and their alleged favouring of indoor exhibits? Without wanting to discredit this very zookeeper: what about getting other people's opinions, doing some literature research on this regard and observe various pygmy hippos in different husbandries personally for longer periods of time, before regarding someone's opinion as the one and only truth?
And what about not trying to belittle someone prematurely as 'negative' when he/she contradicts your current opinion? Changing this attitude will help you tremendously, not just on the field of zoos...

@snowleopard: And I can't wait till they start to tackle their current husbandry problems (including mass deaths of budgies, ancient cat houses and certain indoor exhibits...) before creating new ones...

01-01-2009

I don't really want to get involved in all the sniping above, re whether creationism can be described as "crap" (in my book, and as a practising catholic, possibly this is a little on the mild side), whether Omaha is a decent place (my experience of it was that it summed all that was best and worst about the midwest) and whether Blackrhino should be so quick to condemn someone (probably not...), and whether pygmy hippos like to stay outside (those at Marwell have an open, featureless lawn on which to graze - and they appear to love it).

What hits me over the head, looking at the new Omaha web site, is the entry charge. It's extraordinary: $11.50 for an adult. Even with dodgy exchange rates, it's about half of what it would cost to get in to most UK zoos. And you get to see dead owls there as well!