We all know those online articles and polls about top zoos are flawed. But this one is by far the worst I have ever seen. It is an attempt (by someone at Yahoo who clearly knows nothing about zoos) to list the best zoo in every state. Here are a few of the "highlights" (by which I mean outrageous and moronic choices). It is almost as if they picked the worst zoo in each state just to get a reaction. Arizona - Out Of Africa (not Desert Museum, Phoenix Zoo, etc) Florida - Sante Fe Community College Teaching Zoo (not Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa, etc) Illinois - Lincoln Park Zoo (not Brookfield) Texas - Fort Worth Zoo (not Dallas, Houston) Tennessee - Chatanooga Zoo (not Nashville, Memphis) South Carolina - Alligator Adventure (not Riverbanks) Oregon - West Coast Game Park Safari (not Oregon Zoo) Minnesota - Como Park Zoo (not Minnesota Zoo) I mean seriously, did anyone at Yahoo even glance at this before posting? https://www.yahoo.com/travel/go-wild-the-best-zoo-in-every-state-120496231352.html
Is West Coast Game Safari that really horrible place I heard about, or am I mixing it up with a different place? Also, how does Minnesota Zoo not make the list? Is the writer drunk? Most likely the writer has never actually been to any of these places and made the list by doing minimal research.
Yes, West Coast Game Safari (which I have not been to) is the horrible place with cats in small cement cages and people can hold young ones. And you are correct, I am sure the writer has never been to any of these places. Whether or not he or she was drunk when writing is anyone's guess.
Yeah, that's what I heard. Not cool. I'm wondering what their basis for "best" was. They don't really list what makes these places better than other zoos. Most people don't really differentiate between zoos, so it looks like they just picked places at random. It's REALLY obvious the writer didn't do research, let alone visit any of these places. They also call San Antonio Zoo a world class zoo. Good lord... It's not a bad zoo, but it's not world class. It's a zoo of moderate size with no spectacular exhibits. Again, I think it speaks to the writer not really differentiating between zoos. All the same to them.
An absolutely hilarious list. No Denver Zoo listed for Colorado, the obscure Alligator Adventure in South Carolina, Chattanooga Zoo in Tennessee...the hilarity continues!
Yeah, Alligator Adventure was confusing to me. I've never been, but going off their website, they don't seem to have a huge variety of animals, and as far as I can tell, they don't have unique exhibits that would warrant them the title of best zoo in South Carolina. The whole list is just... wut.
The tough part is, though, getting the visitors to know and care. Many zoos are unique, but lots of people don't really bother to try and see what's special about the place they're at. Like, so many people go to zoos just to see the few big animals, (tigers, lions, elephants, and so on) and they don't usually know when they're seeing something special. Right now I'm going nuts about the Minnesota Zoo getting Hawaiian monk seals, it's the only place outside of Hawaii to see the species. But a lot of people, even though they like the seals, they won't treat it differently from seeing a more common pinniped. Anyway. This list is just so... baffling. A lot of states don't have a lot of large zoos/aquariums/safari parks, so there's not usually much debate on which one is the best. Yet this list STILL manages to fail!
Clearly not meant to a true "best of" list. Definitely the product of Internet research, with key words like "zip line" and being able to "touch" the animals, appealing to the researcher. At best they were looking for a unique state by state experience. More likely they have a very limited appreciation what "Zoo" means to those of us here.
However...some solid choices...but those just expose the flaws in the research and intentions of the list maker.
The limits of their research seems limited to the most recent or upcoming event/project at each zoo. For example, their citation for Beardsley Zoo (besides being the only real zoo in the state) is that it "caters to adults with events such as the upcoming Wild Wine, Beer and Food Safari." Despite the fact that, like all zoos, Beardsley primarily caters to children. Their reason for the Brandywine Zoo (besides once again being the only real zoo in the state) is "Zoo Yoga, Saturdays at 9 a.m. for kids ages 4-7. How cool is that?" Lincoln Park Zoo is like a mix of the two above zoos, as they "especially liked Yoga at the Zoo and the Brew to Be Wild beer festival." They also give the most generic reason for Fort Wayne Children's Zoo: "Fort Wayne Children’s Zoo is a prime example of a facility that offers exhibits and activities that teach children the importance of species diversity in a fun setting." Isn't that what all zoos strive to do?
Maybe they were looking for zoos that were ok but needed help so they just put all of those to increase the money they get.
Then why mention the San Diego Zoo as the best zoo in California (which it is) instead of a smaller and more financially-strapped zoo, such as Micke Grove, Santa Ana, or Charles Paddock?
Maybe because they would get immense criticism if they didn't put the San Diego Zoo, since that one is the most obvious option (much moreso than all the other zoos that werent included, like Denver, for most non-zoo going people)? I dont know it is just a hypothesis.
That's a good point. I haven't thought about that. Your point also probably applies to them choosing the Bronx Zoo in New York.
