Sorry, I could think of a way to phrase the title of this one. I was chatting with an acquaintance today who I found out was into zoos almost as much as me and comes from a science background. We were talking about zoos we had visited and she suggested that certain zoos should focus their collections on a certain area. For example, one zoo could focus on African species, one could focus on Asian species, and we both mentioned northern zoos focusing more on cold weather species, although they could do a good indoor tropical exhibit. The idea on this is that a zoo could really go all out with its collection. It seems to me that the North Carolina Zoo is similar to this in that it only has animals from Africa and North America. Regardless of the setup a zoo could still keep at least some charismatic species. For example, a cold weather zoo could have Amur tigers but if it had a large indoor tropical exhibit it could exhibit gorillas as well. We had a pretty interesting discussion. I hope this makes sense. I had a bit of a hard time explaining it. What are some of your thoughts on this? Also, I apologize if a thread like this has been started and I didn't find it.
This idea is not new, but very few major zoos ever done it. In the 1960es, when Czechoslovakia was a rigid comunistic coutry, all our zoos were public property, owned by state (or by city - in case of Prague zoo) and all were managed by one ministry´s commision in Prague. And the official approved plan was for every zoo to specialize on fauna of one (or two in case of tropic Asia+Australia) continent, I think I have somewhere the full list still? Prague zoo was the only exception, as a representative capital city zoo, it was allowed to continue with all-around collection. But, as usually, the communistic country had other priorities and most zoos never received enough funds to try to realise this plan. The only local zoo that still maintains this specialization is Dvur Kralove.
Your acquaintance isn't the first to voice this concept, as Jana already pointed out. Dortmund Zoo, as a German example, tries to focus on South American fauna, possibly to stand out among the other closeby zoos. Chomutov, Norden's Ark, Korkeasaari, Miami, The Living Desert...are some examples of zoos focusing on animals originating from similar climates. Given their current collections with various non-South American species, Dortmund's focus doesn't appear to work out as intended. The inherent problem of such a concept is that the zoos that are not representing the popular species from Africa and Asia will have a hard time to compete with neighbouring zoos displaying these very creatures. One of the most commonly uttered complains by visitors at Frankfurt Zoo is the lack of elephants-often included with the remark that the next time they will go to a zoo, it will be the closeby Opel Zoo that does keep elephants. If the course of history (and our ancestors' way of hunting megavertebrates down to extinction) had been different, European, American or Australian /NZ zoos would be able to have their own share of local megafauna representatives around to keep. However, this isn't the case. Therefore, no mammoths are kept in European zoos (except for some stuffed ones at Dvur or Rostock). And once you allow a zoo with a not-so-attractive geographical focus to include exotic megafauna species, the zoo's original species focus will slowly but surely get muddy and end up as a "normal" zoo. A few noteworthy exceptions (Innsbruck Alpenzoo, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum) excluded...
It's an interesting concept, and I'd be fine with zoos doing such a thing. Different zoos have different missions, and some might want to educate on a certain part of the world. African safari parks are pretty common. Most of the large animals at the Minnesota Zoo are from North America and Russia, with many smaller animals in their rainforest and ocean buildings. Though that is mostly done out of practicality, as it's more difficult to keep lots of large animals from warm areas (like lions from Africa) in a place that gets as cold as Minnesota. Also, Batto makes some good points. When a member of the general public visits a zoo, there are certain animals they expect to see, so geographic focus might be difficult for a zoo that picks a place that doesn't have lots of the charismatic megafauna. Pick a zoo that is missing a "stock" zoo animal and there will be people complaining about it. Us ZooChat users might get more excited about seeing some obscure bird species than an African lion, but I suppose the average zoo visitor isn't like that.
Colder climates are a challenge for sure. I sometimes question the keeping of animals like giraffes and elephants in cold climates, but charismatic species like gorillas can be kept indoors in satisfactory enclosures in the winter and I imagine species like lions could have satisfactory indoor enclosures for winter. Warmer climates are definitely easier.
True, though it does limit the amount of large warm weather animals such a zoo can comfortably keep. Probably wouldn't get more than a few animals at the most. All a matter of balance, really. Any zoo has to do that. Choosing between one difficult/expensive species or multiple easier/cheaper ones.
