Thoughts on San Diego Zoo » San Diego Zoo

07-10-2008

Are they really? Where did you find this out from? I also heard in regards to the LA Zoo that there rhino has horn cancer. Is this true? Also do you know why SD Zoo is exchanging with LA Zoo

07-10-2008

It's about time...for a new male hippo. He's had enough children at San Diego.

And about the rankings, Black Rhino, where did you find their list?

07-10-2008

Well, I found this info at the LA zoo volunteer office. Every month they post a list of animals that are incoming, outgoing, or in quarantine at the zoo. And in the list they mention that the LA zoo will be receiving a male hippo from SD, and we are sending our male hippo to SD, but it doesn't say when it'll happen. I do not know why they are exchanging, but it could be for breeding purposes, but I really don't know.

It is true, Rhanda has cancer and recently had horn operation. The zoo sent me an email saying that she came out good, and is doing much better. I think the zoo first thought that she had her horn infected, but it turned out to be cancer.

07-10-2008

Once again, it isn't that I hate San Diego, I just think they're more recent (and subsequently in-house designed) exhibits are not up to their own previously set standards with exhibits like Tiger River and the African Kopje. Also I am thoroughly disappointed with the overall direction of both the zoo and the Wild Animal Park, they seem to be headed away from what I felt made them great.

07-10-2008

@okapikpr: There list is in their book under Best Places to See. I have also e-mailed them asking them their opinions and they seem to both favor San Diego.

07-10-2008

I didnt see any Hippo ranking?

07-10-2008

Yup, it's on page 20. This is a list for "Best places to see favorite creatures"

07-10-2008

But those are ranked, just listed

07-10-2008

No they are ranked. If it was a list they would be more alphabetical. They both have told me San Diego is their favorite.

Clearing up Our Ratings
08-10-2008

I want to clear up your debate about the book and it's rankings:

1. Although not ranked with a number, the zoos on the Best Places to See Animals lists are meant to be in order with the best first. So, we did rate San Diego as the #1 zoo to see hippos. However, more went into that decision than just San Diego's Ituri Forest Hippo Beach exhibit. But, San Diego also has underwater viewing for pygmy hippos in a great mixed species exhibit. San Diego is the only zoo that I know of that has underwater viewing of both species, and that made it pretty easy to make the decision. The rest of the ranks are mostly based on the quality of the underwater viewing for the hippos at St. Louis, Disney, Toledo, and Busch. Disney's Kilimanjaro Safari hippo exhibit was a factor, but honestly not given deserved credit.

2. In my opinion, both okapikpr and black rhino are correct in their choices for best hippo exhibit. I've seen all 5 of the aformentioned underwater hippo exhibits, and San Diego's is the best. But, Disney's Kilimanjaro Safari's hippo habitat is unbelievable. I remember seeing a herd of a dozen or more hippos together and more than any other part of that exhibit, I felt like I could have been in Africa when looking out at the herd resting in their huge pool flapping their ears and bellowing. It's unparalleled if for no other reason than just that no other zoo could afford to feed that many hippos!! Hippos are super social (or gregrarious - great word!) so it's amazing to see them in such a natural setting. Sorry, I know that's kind of a cop out to say both are the best, but in their own ways, no other zoo can compete with their hippo exhibit quality.

08-10-2008

It's interesting to see what factors are involved with everyone's rankings, and how they change depending on perspective. To try and get consensus, you'd almost need a scorecard split into different sections, with points allotted to each, looking at things like:

1) Overall appearance/theming
2) Animal management ability
3) Educational value
4) "WOW" factor
5) Innovative-ness
6) ...

Most of the arguments here are based upon people putting different emphasis on the various aspects, but forgetting/downplaying/misinterpreting others. A TRULY great exhibit should be strong in all fields. And let us not forget that these discussions are supposed to be "fun", and that it isn't a competition to have more people agree with you vs. someone else with a different opinion!!!!

And my two cents on the "hippo exhibit" subthread, I think Saint Louis's interpretive graphics are awesome, Toledo's original Hippoquarium is at the top for innovation, San Diego is definitely a "wow" exhibit, and Disney (to which I've not been to yet) has more management options for hippos than anyone else (and heck, they've got 16 of them!).

22-03-2009

I know this is an old thread, but as a member of the SD Zoo, I felt like chiming in. I see both points of view, although I think the negative group is way too caught up in little details.

The best attribute of the zoo is probably the sheer amount of species, but most of its exhibits are somewhere between good and great.

I would break their exhibits down this way:

Positives:

Gorilla Tropics(tremendous imo)
Monkey Trails(very good assortment of animals and viewing, isn't as good as it could have been though)
Absolutely Apes(I can agree that there could be more options for the apes as far as climbing/swinging/being in the canopy is concerned, but it's still a great exhibit.)
Ituri Forest(I guess I just don't care about the fence much, also not nearly as bothered by the otter/buffalo exhibit as most.)
Tiger River(very good exhibit, saw the cubs up close on my recent visit)
Pandas(very good, but I like DC's better because you don't have to wait in a line.)
Polar Bears(Great imo, btw, no red pandas in that area anymore.)
Sun Bear Forest(also very good, just put a couple youngsters on exhibit)
Reptile Mesa(tons of animals, the tortoises and Indian Gharials are highlights)
Hoofstock(Obviously beat most zoo's in quantity, most exhibits are spacious enough as well, will be interested in what they do with the space that the elephants are currently in(hopefully rhino's or giraffes, then combine the two exhibits those two use for the other species.
Koalas(Has a bunch of them, successful breeding, good viewing)
Aviary's: A couple good one's, although I'm not that into birds)
Raptors(good, spacious enclosures for various eagles and condors.)

Plus some random other exhibits like the Giant Anteater, meerkats, tree kangaroo's, and birds of paradise. And again, the sheer number of animals is a plus, even if some of the animals aren't in good exhibits.

Elephant Odyssey to come, looking forward to seeing this one, will surely be a positive for the elephants, and almost as importantly, the lions and jaguars, which brings me to the negatives.

Negatives:

Big cat exhibits other than Tigers(They do have the space to upgrade the exhibits right where they are, especially with the jags moving, hopefully that's next)
Bear canyon(Not horrible, but would love to see new exhibits)
Rhinos(addressed this above in the Elephant Odyssey part, would like more space for them, there is good viewing however)
Various smaller animals(many are still in old school cages with little space)

Overall an excellent zoo. I certainly get the frustration, some zoo's, mostly the newer one's don't have the issues the SD zoo does. However, most also can't compete with the amount of species, including rare and exciting one's, and also can't compete, or at least beat the best the SD zoo has to offer in terms of exhibits.

22-03-2009

I sort of disagree with you. I wouldn't say it's the number of animals San Diego has that makes it so good, I would say it's that they have an astounding amount of great exhibits. Whether than having one or two absolute knock-out exhibits and the rest poor, they have an enormous amount of great ones with very few poor ones. Elephant Odyssey may be a knock-out exhibit. You forgot to mention in the positives the Tiger River section, as I think San Diego has a superb, brilliant tiger exhibit. I don't understand what the problem is with the rhino enclosure. It serves its purpose and I think it is plenty big. The two brothers always seemed to be occupied doing something and the viewing is among the best around for rhinos.

22-03-2009

I basically said the same thing about the exhibits, just didn't use the word astounding, which may be over the top imo.

Yes, the tiger exhibit is very good, meant to include that, thanks.

I don't see how you can refer to the rhino exhibit as plenty big. It's not that bad in that regard, but it should be bigger, would be nice if there was some grass/plants as well. Yes, the viewing is great, partly because the exhibit size is somewhat small.

22-03-2009

It's narrow but not small which is why you can get close to the rhinos. Rhinos don't really require that much space, and the exhibit is quite long.