I'm confused about this comment, especially since you liked @pachyderm pro's previous post about the gharial exhibit in San Diego. I would just like some context as to why you disagree with the badger exhibit but like the gharial exhibit.
In my opinion, the gharial exhibit is a more appropriately sized, naturalistic, and pleasing exhibit than the badger exhibit. The gharial exhibit also contains other turtles to create a beautiful mixed species exhibit.
While this is obviously true, the connection goes much deeper than the local sports team. Badgers have entered Wisconsin culture in a way that may not be obvious to people from outside the Midwest. Wisconsin's state nickname is the Badger State - most of earliest settlers who reached the area were lead miners on the prairies that lived in underground houses. Since this lifestyle was similar to that of the badger, a common sight on the prairies at that time, the animal became adopted a symbol of the people of Wisconsin. This connection only grew when the University of Wisconsin adopted the badger as their symbol. The university popped up shortly before Wisconsin achieved statehood in 1848. For many of these early years (and in many circles still today) UW-Madison was considered one of the crowing achievements of the state and their connection with the badger has only strengthened its status as a state symbol. The badger is officially considered our state symbol by even the state government and basically anything that tries to celebrate the State of Wisconsin will prominently feature the badger. Basically, yes, the exhibit is connected to the UW's football team. But the connection goes much deeper, there's a reason the exhibit is called "Wisconsin Heritage". And yes, the signage at the exhibit does explain all of this!
Which is all fair enough, and local connection is important. I still don’t see a good reason for inclusion on the list though. The exhibit itself is not historical in origin or unique in design - nor is it a looker. Historical and cultural connection is a frequent player in zoo exhibits, and is not a unique feature either. The exhibit duo (minus the sports team theming) has plenty of similar style equivalents in many zoos. I don't agree this average-appearing exhibit is worthy of the top cut. We're now arguing on grounds of cultural connection and badgers are cool that this exhibit belongs - the latter is supposed to be negligible, and the former is not an uncommon situation. I don't feel like that's how this thread is supposed to work. I want to see some lesser known exhibits included, but I'd like to see uniqueness and ingenuity take the slot - not a standard indoor/outdoor viewing next to a fenced yard.
Incredibly polarizing choice @pachyderm pro This is a fun inclusion. First and only time I’ve seen badgers was at NEW Zoo. Certainly a better and more entertaining exhibit here. Worthy of the list if you ask me! I will always argue that an exhibit that allows animals to best exhibit their natural behaviors is better than a “looker.” I am much more apt to stop and watch a native species that I would otherwise probably take a passing glance at if I immediately see them active and engaging with their exhibit. That’s entertaining and draws people in to see a less flashy species that’s in their own backyard!
Well and oftentimes a nice naturalistic exhibit brings out natural behaviors quite well. Though frequently that means sleeping as much as anything in my experience. It is also quite possible for a low key exhibit to provide enough stimulus for natural behaviors, it just may not look as nice as some inclusions here. The badger/crane exhibits here are perfectly suitable for the inhabitants, they're not bad exhibits at all. But as defined in this thread, are they really a must-see for the zoo enthusiast? This is the most controversial one so far, and I think the easiest to understand why. It is always interesting to hear people's opinions when these sort of threads arise, and we certainly have plenty of them! Even with one discussion already split off the thread is already looking to probably be at least double the length of Lintworm's! But then these threads will always provoke debate as nobody will ever fully agree with one person's choices, and hopefully we can continue to argue civilly and agree to disagree at times to allow the thread to go on. We still have 92 exhibits yet to see and potentially debate, at some point we need to shake hands and let the next exhibit in. All of us would make different lists of the top 100 exhibits, so let's not argue too much over things.
I've enjoyed the friendly debates that have broken out so far (this thread would be a bit boring without them after all), but I agree it's best not to drag them on for too long. Quite frankly, I'm surprised how much discussion there has already been and how contentious some of my choices were. This is definitely one of the more unconventional picks so I wasn't surprised by the pushback and luckily the next ten or so exhibits are all far more agreeable, so the amount of debate will be dying down a little. No worries, there will be plenty more deep cuts coming later. With that said, I do want to respond to two comments that were made: What I meant by this is that the rarity of the species being exhibited does not matter. For example, a poorly designed aviary packed with rare birds wouldn't be included of course. However, an exhibit that has a unique focus or showcases a particularly odd species in a noteworthy way would certainly be worthy of featuring. I personally feel like this exhibit has done both. Also, I never said that the crane exhibit was mediocre. It's perfectly good, just not focus of the exhibit and there's nothing wrong with that. This was just me citing my own personal experience to provide an example of how this exhibit is engaging and memorable. Regardless, I've maintained that this list is only my opinion and I personally think that this exhibit is indeed great and very much a must-see display.
I've seen badger in a half dozen zoos, both as exhibits and ambassadors, and I do think Henry Vilas has the best badger exhibit I've seen. I also do appreciate the nice signage of the cultural and historical importance. To me, the drawback of the exhibit complex is that the cranes aren't given similar consideration. The same university with its badger mascot is where Aldo Leopold wrote A Sand County Almanac. Sandhill cranes are an iconic bird of the region. A lot more visitors to the area will see them in the wild than they will badgers (I did later on the day of my visit) - and yet they're treated here like an afterthought. I feel like the exhibit would have been greatly improved by giving these birds an equally nice set up. As it is, I feel too many zoos treat the sandhill as "the poor man's crane" and use it as filler. Even ICF doesn't really do them justice - compare their whooping crane exhibit to their sandhill one.
Overall, I find cranes of any species aren't really done justice by most zoos. Despite being some of the more common birds kept by zoos, out of the seventeen exhibits I've seen for eleven species of crane (at eleven different zoos), the only exhibit I've found does them justice is the Hooded Crane aviary at Franklin Park Zoo. Cranes, arguably more so than any other taxa of birds, suffer way too much from pinioning and wing clipping, being kept in open topped enclosures that are oftentimes too small or set up poorly to begin with. A shame really, as these are big, beautiful birds that can make incredible exhibit animals if given the chance to shine.
I don’t much anticipate Chattanooga Zoo ending up on this list other than maybe as an honorable mention for their South America area, but they did one thing right. I remember seeing their grey crowned crane area fully netted in with multiple levels of perches and being surprised to have to look up to see the cranes perching on a rooftop. I don’t think I’d ever seen them off the ground before. Even the ICF didn’t really give them elevated perches, even in the aviary exhibits.
It's nice to see one of the exhibits I've seen get on here, haven't seen NEW Zoos Badger exhibit so as far as I can tell, that is the best Badger I've seen, can completely see where others are coming from on the crane side of things, as compared to the ICF about an hour away, it is not as worth seeing
9. Charles H. Hoessle Herpetarium Saint Louis Zoo, MO Opened: 1927 Size: 17,000 Square Feet (1,580 Square Meters) Inhabitants: Roughly 80 reptiles and amphibians. Approaching a century of use, this Mediterranean-style stucco building still serves the same purpose it did when it was first unveiled. It’s not often that such old structures can still accommodate such a large volume of animals while meeting modern standards, yet this is still one of the most diverse reptile collections in an American zoo. The walls of the house are lined with vivaria containing tons of ectotherms, including many rarities, with over 80 species on display. The building received some updates in the 90s, but has also been carefully maintained with many of the original elements still present. One of the most distinct characteristics is the attractive central garden which is home to various rare turtle species and serves as an iconic piece of design. A large greenhouse display includes some larger exhibits for lizards and caimans, while alligators and giant tortoises are treated to spacious and well furnished outdoor yards connected to the building's lower level. Originally this lower hall was dedicated to small mammals as at the time there was doubt reptiles alone would be of interest to the general public, but now it features indoor tortoise housing, a tomistoma exhibit, and a few exceptionally tall displays that are viewed from both floors. The building is quite the triple threat with an outstanding collection, high standard of exhibitry and stunning historical architecture all adding up to a brilliant animal house. @pachyderm pro @Moebelle @pachyderm pro @snowleopard @pachyderm pro @pachyderm pro Similar Exhibits: Saint Louis has two other monumental historical buildings just around the bend from the herpetarium: the bird and primate houses. All of these buildings were constructed around the same time and in the same style, complete with indoor gardens at the center. The bird house is the largest of the trio, but perhaps the weakest in it's exhibitry with many harp-wire enclosures that are far too small. The primate house is a standard affair on the inside, but recently received an impressive outdoor extension and still maintains an impressive collection. All of these houses have been superbly maintained and comprise a genuinely beautiful historical district right in the middle of the zoo. Bird House @pachyderm pro @Moebelle @pachyderm pro Primate House @pachyderm pro @pachyderm pro @pachyderm pro
The 1927 Herpetarium at Saint Louis Zoo is a brilliant choice. There's no controversy with lemurs in small off-show cages or badgers digging crop circles in Wisconsin. Saint Louis is a wonderful zoo, with an enormous collection and a wide range of high quality exhibits. The Herpetarium is a world-class Reptile House, combining historic architecture with modern flourishes. My only quibble would be that I counted 98 species when I toured the zoo in 2014, an impressive total, but @pachyderm pro mentions 80 species in his review. It would be interesting to see if anyone has an updated list of what's inside that fantastic building. I'd argue that Saint Louis Zoo has the nation's 2nd best Reptile House after MOLA at Fort Worth Zoo.
My estimate of 80 species comes from a recent species list courtesy of @cloudedleopard611 that was done at the end of November, which I will link below. If I counted correctly, there are 75 species listed, however there are 10 exhibits that were unoccupied at the time the list was made and at least three of those have since been filled according to the Saint Louis Zoo news thread. The others will likely be filled shortly, so there should be an average of about 80 species exhibited give or take. Saint Louis Zoo species list 11/21 [Saint Louis Zoo]
The Herpetarium fluctuates a lot. Things go off and on exhibit constantly. There's certainly some staples that have been around for a long time and are likely here to stay for the foreseeable future, but many of the terrariums swap residents quite frequently. It's a bit frustrating to keep up with but its also fun because you never know what you'll see in there. Keeps it fresh and exciting, even for someone like me who visits to zoo multiple times a month.
Great choice, but what a way to rub salt in the wound (of no fault of your own of course) because both houses were closed on my visit three days ago I suppose that speaks about how great the reptile house is, that it can nearly make or break a trip. Red Rocks with all of its ungulates was a saving grace, of course.
While I personally wouldn't have included this exhibit on my list of must-see exhibits, it comes at no surprise to me that others feel it is worthy of inclusion, as it certainly has a lot of historical value and holds up remarkably well. I tend not to be overly impressed with reptile houses, especially the historical ones, as they tend to be rather "congested" with people as these buildings, especially when jam-packed with countless exhibits on both sides of the path, don't really lend themselves to holding a lot of people. From what I've seen, crowds tend to be a bigger issue in reptile houses than any other type of zoo exhibit. This can be especially frustrating when trying to find various species (a process that can take time with reptiles as many are good at hiding/camouflage), as oftentimes crowds lead to a rushed feel that I'm personally not a fan of. Furthermore, due to the small viewing windows most terrariums have, oftentimes it can be difficult to even see when there are crowds. Again, this isn't to criticize this exhibit, but just to explain why reptile houses tend to not be my cup of tea.
I sort of agree. I love the old buildings, preserved and repurposed effectively. I like them less when they are too people-y. I saw the herpetarium a few times in the early 2000's. Crowds were moderate, so I had chance to see all I wanted for as long as my then-girlfriend would tolerate me looking at snakes and lizards. Also, if I'm not mistaken, I think this is the reptile building with the giant Amazon basin yellow foot tortoises, which were always a marvel to me. The rare moment I enjoy the most in a zoo is being in an older reptile building (with modernized exhibitry) that's fairly empty. I got this experience at Brookfield this year, and it was wonderful. Even got to speak with a keeper about some of the animals and exhibit history.
I agree that these exhibits can be incredible when there aren't crowds. While not a world class exhibit, I've had this experience in the Buffalo Zoo Reptile House, and it's incredible to have the exhibit gallery virtually to yourself and be able to truly appreciate the reptiles and amphibians. The other issue with many reptile houses I've found is that sometimes they cram so much in that it can be overwhelming. While I can appreciate a desire to have a large collection, I'm not a fan of reptile houses (or aquariums, insectariums, etc.) that pile exhibit upon exhibit for the entire building. It'd be really nice to see some reptile houses that spread out their exhibits a little more and leave some more room for interpretive/educational displays, interactives, etc., as well as building more immersive exhibits for the larger reptiles, versus just the large glass-fronted exhibits that remain standard. While I haven't seen it in person, @Moebelle's Zoo Tours video of Knoxville's reptile house seems like it accomplishes this fairly well.
