Big Name Zoos in Decline

Oh, I wasn't aware that this was a game. So, what's the prize? You being less cheeky and overbearing?

Hagenbeck's lack of recent investment & innovation, species reduction, legacy issues and the ongoing public quarrel between and among the zoo administration and staff members has been detrimental to the zoo's further development. Hannover was the most popular zoo in Germany in the late 1990s, often considered a trailblazer for the future of European zoos in regard to the integration of amusement park elements into the more traditional German zoo landscape. Not much of this glory has survived to this day, except for the admission prices.

 

Was at Hannover two summers ago and it all seemed fairly buoyant to me...and the place was packed. The comment on it being Germany`s most popular zoo in terms of attendance in the late 1990s is off the mark - it was the 5th most popular zoo,with less than half the attendance of Zoo Berlin in 1998 and today receives more than half a million visitors MORE than it had then. The collection that HAS dropped from world-famous levels under Bernhard Grzimek is Frankfurt with the nearby Kronberg Zoo not getting many visitors less these days.

 

It isn't if you actually lived in Germany during that time and experienced how it was hyped all over by the German old media during that time. Which might have been connected to the political ambitions and thus support of the back then Minister President of Lower Saxony, Gerhard Schröder...

 

You should have seen the place when the hype train was in full drive; everyone and their mother were there. The media, may it be RTL, BILD etc., made it appear to German zoo muggles that only one zoo existed in Germany. Then Zoo Leipzig and LoroParque took over surfing the medial zoo wave and became the next big thing...
As for Zoo Frankfurt: similar to Jersey and Durrell, Cincinnati and Maruska, NYC and Conway, East Berlin and Dathe, Columbus and Hannah etc etc., the general demise could, among others, be contributed to the gap left by a charismatic, popular and influential zoo director...

 

Definitely in decline - as are all the WCS facilities - Central Park (Tropic Zone was rat infested last time I attended ),
Prospect Park (Closed due to storm damage and one major indoor indoor exhibit never bought fruition, Queens Zoo (Never added their much lauded jaguar exhibit nor any climate controlled indoor facilities to augment their transition to an “Americas”( Nearctic/Neo Tropical) zoogeographic facility , which would necessitate indoor , thermal housing for herps and tropical birds and mammals ).
Staten Island - the best of the “outer” borough zoos - stumbles along - its reach exceeding its grasp- as it is continuously under funded, under publicized and unknown to the general public.
The aquarium has deacquisitioned walrus, belugas and fur seals.
A dud.
If you want a good example of small zoo that has continued to grow and expand go to Turtle Back Zoo in New Jersey
900,000 in attendance last year - a record .
The Bronx - get rid of elephants , polar bear . Do not exhibit hippos , rhinos ,Asiatic bear, orangutan, marsupials - too any degree
Do not build a cohesive Neo Tropical exhibit, permanently close your Nocturnal exhibit ..etc, etc..
But DO add more and more gift shops , rides etc
Patrons go to a zoo to see animals
The apathy of New Yorkers is what really has caused the decline .
Zoo attendance no longer supports large Capitol projects .
The vast plurality of memberships and attendance comes from the suburbs and tourists
The culture of NYC does not give a damn about zoos or aquaria - which why we do not have a world class one
For Atlanta to have a greater aquarium than NY is patently absurd !
Georgia did not even HAVE an aquarium in 1957 - when Coney Island opened
Not to build elephant breeding centers in the Bronx is a crime
When I started visiting the zoo they exhibited Forest elephant, giant otters, Nile and Pygmy hippo, Stelkar sea lions, jaguar , Emperor penguins, an entire indoor exhibit dedicated to kangaroo (marsupials) etc
Albeit - poorly
But there was nothing wrong with the specimens only the exhibits that housed them . THAT is what need tbe improvement ! And COULD have been improved but was not - despite idealistic plans to do so.
Now we have playgrounds, gift shops and bad food where , once there were animals
The zoos of New York have become as decadent as the decadent neighborhoods and apathetic residents that house them
Shame on us - and I am a fifth generation New Yorker

 

Based on this and your other posts, I'm beginning to suspect the only reason you are on Zoo Chat is to express your dislike of New York City zoos. While some of the points in this post I think are unwarranted and/or not evidence of a zoo in decline, there are other ones that I do think at least deserve some discussion.

If cancelling plans for a new exhibit is evidence of a zoo in decline, then we could say basically every zoo in the United States is declining . Many zoos announce grand master plans, with plenty of new exhibits, new animals, etc., and the reality is that as times change, the plans have to change too for a variety of reasons- whether they be financial, the ability to acquire a particular species, advancing technology, changing standards for keeping animals, or a new director wanting to move the zoo in a different direction. Oftentimes, master plans are designed that are for twenty years or more, in which case it is an almost certainty that plans will need to change before the later projects are completed.

And in how good of exhibits were these species housed? The aquarium doesn't exactly have an infinite amount of space, and none of the three species you mentioned are small, per say. Furthermore, none of those three species are very common in zoos, it's likely the aquarium would be unable to source more even if they wanted to, given the current state of the populations.

I can agree with this- Turtle Back Zoo is a very respectable zoo, albeit not a perfect one. It's also larger than any of the four smaller NYC zoos and doesn't have the same degree of historical buildings that need to be preserved, so it has had a different set of challenges than the WCS zoos. That's not to discount Turtle Back Zoo, though- it really is a great zoo, and one with a lot of newer exhibits.

Some of those are actually animals that Bronx Zoo *does* exhibit. There are both white and greater one-horned rhinos at the Bronx Zoo, and multiple marsupial species (Matschie's tree kangaroo in Jungle World, feathertail glider in Mouse House). Orangutans in particular would be a great species for the zoo to add- but at the end of the day it'd be impossible for the zoo to have every species someone may want. I'm sure in an alternate reality we'd be here talking about a Bronx Zoo which exhibited each of those species, but complaining about the lack of gorillas, grizzly bears, giraffes, and tigers .

The nocturnal exhibit was closed during the Great Recession- when cultural institutions (such as zoos, museums, etc.) were hit particularly hard. Just about every zoo had to cut costs somehow, whether that be through laying off staff, downsizing, deferring maintenance, etc. If the Bronx Zoo didn't close World of Darkness, they would've had to close a different exhibit instead or make massive cuts to another department if they wanted to stay afloat.

That is most certainly not true- only a few years ago the New York Aquarium opened Ocean Wonders: Sharks, which is easily the best aquarium exhibit I've ever seen! WCS also may not have the funds available right now for another major project- they've had to invest a lot into maintenance and repairs in recent years (both at Prospect Park and the Aquarium), and running a zoo, let alone five, is a very costly endeavor to begin with.

Why does a good aquarium in New York need to come at the expense of a good aquarium in Atlanta? I'd love it if both cities had excellent aquariums (and as a matter of fact they do!)

In what way would that be a crime? Not every zoo needs to house or breed every species. Breeding elephants is very expensive and takes up a lot of space, which may be more resources than the Bronx Zoo is willing to dedicate to a single species. Even though Bronx Zoo isn't limited in physical space, the cost of staffing is still a limiting resource for zoos, and elephants are a species which typically needs a large number of dedicated keepers to house correctly.

It would've been impossible for the zoo to build improved exhibits for every species they once held, as it would've been way too expensive to maintain all of those exhibits, especially in terms of staffing but also in terms of keeping all the exhibits up to date. Bronx Zoo chose to invest in other species instead, and while it would be nice to see some of those species at the Bronx Zoo, what they did choose to invest in (e.g., lemurs, gorillas, tigers, snow leopards, geladas) are all really great species in incredible exhibits, too. That's not even mentioning the fact some of the species on your list would be literally impossible for the zoo to acquire today.

 

Wow what spirited defense by , obviously , zealous , supporters of , particularly , WCS run New York City zoological institutions - little mention of SI Zoo , which has an autonomous zoological society.
To answer a few points :
Yes , I may be “Gothamcentric” in my criticism (Evaluation?) on the state of
NYC zoos - because I live there and have attended them since the 50s- as a child- and have a vested interest in such.
I have of course traveled the world and had the privilege of attending zoos in
London , Chester, Belfast, Dublin, Paris, Monaco, Berlin, Munich, Frankfort, Madrid, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Zurich, Rotterdam, Moscow, Rome, Tenerife,Pretoria , Krueger Park (Not a zoo), Tokyo, Surabaya, Peking, Osaka,Yokohama , Sydney, Healesville, Melbourne , Perth, Nairobi, Bangkok, Chang Mai, Bogor , Dubbo, Kampala,Kinshasha etc, etc as well as every major zoo in every major city in the U.S.: LA, Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Detroit, Cleveland , Cinncinatti, Dallas, Fort Worth, Atlanta - etc, etc - so I do have a first hand basis for comparison.
I grew up in the “postage stamping “ era of zoological collection by which a
Zoo’s collection was measured by the number of species it exhibited - at one point the “Bronx” has over a 1,000.
I believe a zoo serves the purpose of exhibiting a diversified zoogeographic taxonomy and breeding critically endangered species in captivity and exhibiting “show animals” to attract attention
The NY zoos should be replicating species but have y unique collections devoted to specific taxa or zoogeographic realms .
Central Park - being on Manhattan “island@ could have, specifically , devoted itself to island species - ie:
Aye Aye, Orangutan - Bornean or Sumatran - Sun bears , a Galapagos exhibit etc.
The foolish notion of Prospect Park being a “Children’s Zoo” is absurd .
Children only like rabbits , skunks and farm animals but, not , leopards, hippos ,
Asiatic black bear , black rhino - all of which they once held - is absurd.

Queens needs an indoor facility to exhibit reptiles and amphibia year round and non temperate species - if they are truly going to represent an “Americas “
collection
The aquarium was intended to be a combination Shedd/ Marineland type facility heralded as, the “largest in the world “ , when first launched in 1957 - some kind of compensation to Brooklyn for the loss of the Dodgers.
The Bronx Zoo was a greater institution than San Diego when I first attending now, no one , would make that comparison
With less area San Diego still manages to house African elephant , polar bears , oragutan , raptors displayed majesterially , Pygmy and Nile hippos,
Mark my words there will come a day - and it is threatened nearly every year - that the former municipal zoos will be closed for budgetary considerations.
How could the Bronx afford to build a carousel and playground - on the former yak then gnu then oryx site - and a facility for orangutans? - which was initially proposed as and adjunct to Jungle World ?
The reason for all this comes down to:
MONEY
Check attendance figures for US zoos
New York is not near the top.
Attendance - per capita - is less than Columbus .
And membership ?
20,000,000 in the NY metro area should have membership a nearly a million
Is it ? No
Apathy on the part of New York City residents
If the attendance were greater and membership more there would be more dollars for investment for the capital projects I espouse and some of you eschew .
I am for the zoos : bigger, better best

 

If that's what you want zoos to be, then the criticism of Bronx is extremely surprising! Bronx exhibits a very diverse collection- including a massive collection of birds, plenty of reptiles and amphibians, an extensive hoofstock collection, over twenty primate species, and more. Yes, there are a few high profile species missing from Bronx, but oftentimes I find zoos either prioritize having a diverse collection or prioritize having as many charismatic megafauna as possible- personally I know I prefer the former.

WCS also works with plenty of critically endangered (or even extinct in the wild) species- including Pere David's deer, Mongolian wild horse, a number of rare amphibian species, etc.

Sure, they could do that, but the zoo in its current form is also excellent. The waterfowl aviary in the Children's Zoo is one of the best exhibits of its kind I've ever seen, and much of the rest of the zoo is really strong too. Truthfully, I think the zoo in its better form is actually better than if it housed the species you proposed instead- as most of the outdoor animals at Central Park Zoo are of cold tolerant species which can be outside year-round.

I don't see how it is "absurd" to have a zoo focused on the demographic of children with families. That theme has less to do with what species the zoo has- and more to do with the zoo's educational priorities, play opportunities throughout, etc. There are certainly ways for Prospect Park Zoo to improve, I'm not denying that, but I much prefer a zoo with a large collection of smaller species (such as Prospect Park's impressive collection of small mammals, birds, and herps) than a zoo with only a small collection of megafauna in small enclosures.

Criticizing the Queens Zoo for having an incomplete collection is certainly valid- I happen to agree with this and find Queens to be by far the weakest of the NYC collections. That said, this thread is about zoos in decline, and not zoos which have never reached their full potential, which I think is what I think the case is for the Queens Zoo.

I've seen posts on this site doing exactly that- and comparing the Bronx and San Diego Zoos, and you'll find people are certainly split about which one is better. While it is true that San Diego Zoo does have some species that Bronx does not, I could also list species that Bronx has but San Diego does not, including some high-profile species like Asian elephants and rhinos. I also feel it's important to note that San Diego Zoo costs twice as much to visit as the Bronx Zoo- something that I find myself losing respect over San Diego Zoo for.

Agreed, but I'm not sure I'd criticize a zoo for having money problems, just about every major zoo has gone through times where they are struggling financially. WCS is in a much better place today than it was in the early 2000's, when they closed multiple exhibits. Many of the things you've criticized- such as carousels, playgrounds, etc., are actually big revenue-drivers for a zoo, even if they aren't exciting for us zoo nerds.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Bronx County has the lowest per capita income of any county in New York State- and significantly lower than the US average. Many locals may not be able to afford a visit to the zoo and/or don't have the time to go to the zoo as a result. Furthermore, compared to most other cities, NYC has *a lot* more cultural institutions for zoos to compete with- I know Franklin Park Zoo in Boston has run into similar problems, since residents have to make the choice to visit the zoo, or the science museum, multiple art museums, etc., a similar case likely exists in NYC, a city known for its numerous excellent museums (in addition to its zoo). This isn't even bringing up other factors, such as access to transportation, which can also impact whether people are able to visit the zoo. It's likely there's a whole lot more factors than simply "apathy" impacting the current state of NYC zoos.

Believe me, I would love it if the NYC zoos invested more in capital projects- I'm merely pointing out that it isn't always feasible for a zoo to do so, and I see no point in criticizing a zoo for a lack of capital investment when the exhibits they have still hold up extraordinarily well.

 

@Don Majeski some of your points are valid. I dislike the commercialism displayed at many zoos nowadays yet this is unfortunately a problem at all institutions and the "average" person would rather have another food stand or hurricane simulator than a new exhibit for some obscure hoofstock. Bronx Zoo of all places has managed to hold off on the commercialism more than many other zoos, though the new budgie aviary felt like a cave-in.

Former New York City resident here, the city and state has tons of budgetary issues and red tape so sadly new zoo projects will be harder there than in just about any other state. NY government throws more money into social services and unions than to zoos and museums. You can complain about New Yorkers apathy about zoos but its much more complicated than that. I am also unhappy about Bronx closing World Of Darkness and Monkey House, but it is what it is. At least they are going against the "corporate America" attitude seen by most other zoos by maintaining their Gaur and Asian deer herds despite AZA recommendation for phase out. It would of been far easier for the zoo to unload these and just add a Siamang or American Black Bear and most visitors wouldn't give a damn, probably even prefer these common species. So credit to the zoo where its due.

Just about every historic zoo you mentioned has seen species declines, at times drastic. Read this threads discussion about London. The days of postage stamp collections are over, husbandry and breeding is what takes precedence now. You want zoos to be places to breed endangered species but that requires plenty of space and resources. Postage stamp collections would interfere with that goal

Also Central Park has a really unique theme, climates (temperate, tropical and arctic areas). An island zoo would be cool, but they'd probably have much less species than you'd like. Prospect Park is just marketed as a children's zoo because it holds smaller species. There really isn't any space for larger animals unless you want them to return to displaying suffering Polar Bears in kiddie pools.

 

Wow if the general population of New York City was as zealous in their attending the six facilities as those on this site were as zealous in defending them I am certain the facilities would be capable of maintaining any species one wished for.
Someone mentioned the “ poverty “ of the Bronx but I was referring to the entire - five borough city . And will point out that the Bronx was just awarded a start up grant of $5,000,000 for a Hip Hop - which did not exist in 1899 when the BZ opened - museum and the payroll of the Bronx’ Yankees is $306,000,000 per annum. Both Bronx institutions .
Meanwhile , the Hall of Fame of Great Americans - another turn of the 20th Century institution - lies fallow and unfounded - it’s busts the likes Washington , Franklin , Agasiz ,Audubon - and like - forgotten monuments to a lost time and culture.
I have never heard of any group advocating for the expansion of any of the cities zoos - God forbid they should on the use of one’s frisbee!
I still maintain that the Bronx Zoos reputation has fallen from the 1950’s to now

 

Old Poznan zoo in Poland. 25 years ago it had a full collection of ABC animals including elephant and giraffes. It is now a free city park with an aquarium, terrarium and mostly domestic animals. But it is a planned move to the new Poznan zoo.

In Germany, Frankfurt zoo is the first to think about. Actually it opened 4 major exhibits since 2000, but it is still a shadow of the fame of the late director Bernhard Grzimek.

Antwerp Zoo and Artis Zoo in Amsterdam are no longer world-class institutions, despite all modernization. Especially in Antwerp one very much feels that it is an outdated zoo with makeshift changes: an aviary of a strange shape which is obviously two old aviaries linked together, a half-empty exhibit in an aquarium meant for much bigger seals etc.

As the excellent thread of Lintworm show, actually most old zoos in Europe lost many large animals. Thinking about old zoos, the unsuccessful ones try to patch old exhibits, put small animals in former paddocks of big animals, for example wild pigs in an elephant paddock, ducks in a seal pool... this never really works.

Also, the example of London, Frankfurt or Bronx zoos show that a zoo run by a business manager or having lots of wild research and conservation projects is not automatically a good thing. Often these seem to suck life out of the zoo. A business manager thinks in terms of a quarterly or yearly budget. He does not care that the zoo needs a public interest to have sponsors and supporters 10 or 20 years in the future, when the manager himself will long leave to another company.

A city zoo which managed to reinvent itself is rather an exception. The successful ones develop by big investments, pulling down whole chunks of the zoo and building anew. Examples are Paris Vincennes, Zurich and Leipzig. They also understand that big animals and crowds of public are an engine pulling all the conservation, education and microfauna.

 

What exhibits are you referring to in each of these instances, as I don't recall seeing anything of that description on my visit a couple years ago - also don't see how, in the case of the aviary, it is by any means an issue?

Antwerp is obviously a shadow of its former self, but certainly still a very good zoo, with the Buffalo Aviary, Aquarium and Reptile House all being highlights - only occasional blunders in exhibit quality (the elephant enclosure comes to mind) being where the zoo shows its age for the worse. Perhaps the upcoming Jubilee renovations will breathe some new life into the zoo?

 

Sometimes I get the impression that a lot of people both seem to think ABC animals are overrated but at the same time think any zoo that goes out of them is in decline.

 

I believe it might be that ABCs are the main draw for most zoos towards the average visitor, so it is concerning to see the animals that bring in money leave the collection.

 

The pool is at the entrance to the aquarium. The conjoined aviary is below. The right half is low and flat-roofed, the left half is twice taller and round-roofed. It is also made of different sized beams and overbuilt over the hippo house but just a little bit. Granted, birds don't care.


@KevinB

 

Unfortunately , zoos , in the cities of the United States of America are anachronisms in relation to the cultures of the urban centers which they occupy.
Relics of the bygone eras of the 19th and early 20th centuries in which they were conceived and built.
Just measure the attendance figures of the Twenty First Century against those of the 19th and Twentieth Centuries for New York City’s zoos when they were conceived and built.
The Bronx Zoo’s size, scope , collection and grandeur were unprecedented when it was built in 1899 and rise to its apex in the 1910s through 50s
Over 1,000 species .
Now all tbe zoos and aquaria hardly hold 1,000 unique species between them
Tbe 265 acres of 1899 dwarfed London, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Vienna , Paris .
The NewYork - Battery Park -aquarium was once the world’s largest and the most highly attended tourist destination!
I have never heard anyone advocate the expansion of the Bronx , Central Park,
Prospect Park , Flushing Meadow Park zoos or Coney Island aquarium
Zoos are relict urban institutions subsidized by suburban populations

 

Why would people advocate for that? I'd love to see new exhibits at the Bronx, but they have room on the current site to do so, for instance the area behind Aquatic Bird House (former Rare Animal Range), re-utilizing the old World of Darkness and Monkey House, and some extra areas near the bison and near Tiger Mountain/Himalayan Highlands. I think a strong area dedicated to wildlife from The Americas, for example, would be great, but there's space on the current footprint for a really great version of this.

As for the aquariums and smaller zoos, I don't see any realistic place where they could even expand to. There are lots of ways to possibly expand the zoos without modifying the existing footprints, and small zoos are still extensively valuable institutions that can have great potential for education and local community outreach.

While the number of species at Bronx Zoo isn't over 1,000 species, based on the data currently in Zootierliste, Bronx Zoo is the most speciose zoo in the United States, with 625 vertebrates. San Diego has only 542 species listed.

 

Thanks for sharing this, I hadn't realised that the aviary was once two, nor that one of the aquarium tanks once held seals. I personally really liked the aviary, being impressed by its sheer vertical height and the use of the roof of the Hippo House to provide the birds with a place to perch and to save space. In general, the idea of an ungulate house equipped with an aviary to add more species into a relatively small zoo, without taking up all that much space, is one that I am very much fond of.

 

Ueno Zoo in Tokyo is the first Japanese zoological institute, but their collection is at a steep decline as of now. Many of their native bird species are being phased out, along with many major mammal deaths such as the okapi and Barbary sheep. Just recently Japan’s last fossa died there. There is also the last great slaty woodpecker in captivity there, and it is steadily aging.

 

Rotterdam Zoo/Diergaarde Blijdorp should probably be on that list.

The Amazonia house that didn't last long due to questionable building and design choices, the sad state of its main building the Riviera Hall, very nice European aviaries that were sacrificed for mediocre okapi outdoor exhibits, rhinoceros and pygmy hippopotamus exhibits that despite being fairly recent aren't very good, the loss of its iconic gorilla group, a masterplan that leaves a lot of questions about how well it will actually work out and that seems very unpopular with fans, and long-standing financial problems - Rotterdam Zoo certainly hasn't been doing the best in the last few years.