Ah yes, the regular visitor. Here is an article, out today, of the ten "best" zoos and 10 "best" aquariums in the USA according to people to post on the Tripadvisor website TripAdvisor, LLC :: TripAdvisor's Call of the Wild: Top 10 U.S. Aquariums and Zoos I can't think of anyone I know who would have created such a list
My tips: gorillas outdoors - Apenheul (best for animals, equal for education to Bronx thx to amphitheatre). orangutans indoors/outdoors - Hamburg (amazing opening roof, well done climbing structures) chimpanzees - Leipzig gelada - Bronx gibbons & monkeys - Apenheul ruffed lemurs - Zurich hoofed animals, lions, tigers - some safari park ibex - Prague elephants - probably this Spanish safari park
Thanks for posting the link Zooplantman. Having Ripley's Aquarium in Gatlinburg (right at the entrance of the Great Smokey Mountains) is a bit of a joke, but my wife and I were just in that area last week and it looks like a mini-Las Vegas! We couldn't believe our eyes when we saw all of the cheesy, kitschy rollercoasters, tiny theme parks and other assorted odds and sods. Also, Memphis Zoo the #1 zoo in America? I posted a review of that zoo a few days ago, and while it is a worthwhile visit it certainly doesn't warrant anything close to a #1 position. Some of the top ten lists that are produced for the public are outrageously and unintentionally hilarious.
I do not see how any top 10 US Zoo list cannot contain an Ohio Zoo, Bronx, and would have SPWAP out off the top 5. Crazy talk. Silly people.
I think for me...the best exhibit is a combination of all of your questions. Clearly, it's important for an exhibit to please visitors. I doubt many of us would be ranking an exhibit highly if we never were able to see an animal because it was often hiding at the back of it's exhibit (such as one of the more common complaints with Wild Asia @ Bronx). But at the same time...none of us would really enjoy an exhibit if the animal looked miserable. Surely, most polar bear displays around the country highlight this. I feel that if an exhibit is good for the animal and for the visitor, all else follows. It will be good for the keeper to work with animals that aren't miserable and be more enjoyable for them. It will be loveliest to look at because it will emulate a creatures habitat well enough. It will be best for breeding because animals will be well off. I think it's about the balance in between, personally.
Well, there's more to keeper satisfaction than thriving animals, although that is so important. In many exhibits, keepers have to squeeze into difficult and uncomfortable spaces, doors, etc. They may have inadequate or cramped kitchen facilities or be required to physically haul heavy supplies long distances or up to high areas because of the way the back of house was designed. and there's so much more that can make keeper work more difficult rather than easier, especially in very old exhibits. If keepers can do their physical husbandry with relative ease and swiftness, they can devote quality time to enrichment, observations, first-hand research and other vitally important tasks that were, in the past, considered unimportant.
I have started several threads on similar subjects and my main concern has always been the welfare of the animals in the exhibits. If they look happy then I am happy. Enclosure size will always be my main concern, together with enrichment. Here, I would just like to add that Zooplantman´s observations above sounds very reasonable. An important factor in all zoo design, indeed!
Well said, many exhibits are designed with the animals and visitors in mind, but not always designed by how the exhibits are to be maintained. *Some exhibits may require tractor work, but doors/gates arent wide enough. *Drains are not located at the lowest point of the floor. *holding areas dont allow effective management groups of animals, especially when shifting or seperating individuals is needed And to note on an earlier thread...if an animal has a good keeper, they arent miserable. Bored sometimes, but not miserable.
my list: Elephants: leipzig (because of the the underwater),hagenbeck indoor and Oakland (CA) Cologne zoo. African wild dogs: Mountains view (Vancouver) Meerkats: Cologne zoo Brown bears:Toronto zoo, woodland park (seattle) Red panda: Cologne zoo Gorillas:woodland park (seattle) Bonobo: Colombus zoo Tigers: dallas zoo, biblical zoo (Jerusalem) Fossa: Duisburg Brown hyenarague zoo Orang utan:NZ zoo in Washington DC Golden lion tamarin:NZ zoo in Washington DC Przewalski's Horses:Binder park zoo (Michigan) Zebra:Berlin Tierpark
Thanks, ZooPlantMan for mentioning the keepers! We sometimes have to live with steps constucted by tall people that shorter keepers have to climb, ususlly carrying something heavy/bulky/ unwieldy. How about gates where the only way to unlock them involves having a bend in the middle of your forearm? Pit exhibits designed with slippery rocks and no easy escape route for the humans? Exhibits that require keepers to have the climbing skills of a mountain goat and the flexibility of a garden snake? Ponds with no drains necessitating the use of either a bucket or a submersible pump? No wonder keepers have learned to be incredibly inventive and creative!
The exhibits I liked most: Elephants-NC Zoo Manatee-Columbus Snow Leopard-Bronx Gorilla-Atlanta, Bronx Mexican Grey Wolf- Stone Zoo Andean Condor, Steller Sea Eagle-Cincy Zoo Penguin-Bronx African Plains exhibit-Granby Zoo Jaguar-Jax Zoo Giant River Otter-Philly Zoo Whale Sharks-Georgia Aquarium (lol) All around- Wilds
