this debate is taking over a few differnt threads at present so i thought id'e start a new one for it. its actually surprising to read how many of my fellow forum members have commented on their belief that zoos "need" large animals like elephants to survive. one member (NZ) just mentioned on another thread, their view that the public expect to see river hippo over pygmy hippo. this seems a bit silly, since one thing we all appear to agree on is that the average zoo visitor doesn't know a tapir from an elephant and is more interested in feeding the screaming kids... most of you, "zoos need big animals" supporters are saying that us zoofans would personally be happy to visit a zoo with smaller animals, yet the public won't. and yet in truth i think theres an aweful lot of subconcious projection going on. i think the idea of your local zoo no longer featuring the A-Z doesn't appeal to you, but not so much the public, who in reality are not as interested in animals as we are. sun wukong, i'll happily admit i am finding this conversation very frustrating. you seem determined to want me to spell out every point in such fine detail that we have become detoured from the original debate that was essentially "can a zoo survive without big animals like elephants?". i think there are enough examples of successful elephantless zoos worldwide to prove that they can, and thus find it very odd that somehow there sems to still be opposition to this. but okay, to answer your question. (from the oregon thread) your absolutely right to a degree. a large gorilla troop (or two as since zoos are now having to mainatin their own batchelor groups) certainly do take up a large area of space. in fact removing the weather issue, there is nothing saying a city zoo can't theoretically cater likewise for an elephant, however, the amount of space this would require would make you wonder if its worth it. imagine for example how many smaller species could be housed in the same amount of space. zoos are saying they are changing into "21st century zoos" but many are missing the point of what a 21st century zoo needs to be. this whole wave of elephant exhibit renovations taking over the urban zoo world is by and large a band-aid solution. it doesn't address the publics number one issue with elephants in zoos - and thats a lack of space. we mention how the public expect to see elephants, yet are we foretting that most also mention how sorry they feel for them as well?!! zoos have to be different. they now have to largely breed enough animals to supply their own demand. the days of acquiring animals from jungles overseas are largely fading away. fortunately a new style of zoo has popped up over the last few decades. its the open range zoo concept. and its a very good concept. zoos in more rural environments can afford to give their animals copious amount of space, manage population better and lend themselves well to a safari-themed experience that visitors relish in. many good zoos developed sister properties that gave people this kind of experience. the idea was that they catered for large herd dwelling animals - essentially ungulates. but it also alleviated the need somewhat to display quite so many ungulates in city zoos thus giving them more space to modernise and develop larger enclosures for the species that stayed behind. most zoos however were reluctant to give up on the staples however. the elephants, a couple of giraffe and often hippo and one or two rhino stayed behind. this was to satisfy the city dwellers apparent need of A-Z in one experience. to me its ridiculous that open range zoos founded on the "large herd dwelling" principle so often refused the eligibility of the worlds largest herd dwelling mammal, the elephant. unfortunately, lack of space is still a big issue in many city zoos. i believe that most city zoo exhibits are roughly half the size they should be. this, is in general, across the board.... meerkats, otters and tamarins just as much as bears and gorillas - urban zoo animals still get seriously short-changed in the space department. i'm adament about this. so what do we do? how do city zoos create more space to better co-ordinate their breeding programs, give the inhabitants more room and keep larger population sizes. the only logical way is to reduce collection sizes. so do you phase out ten smaller species to make way for a new elephant exhibit that houses one species or do we stop keeping relict populations of elephants and rhinos in small city zoos and capitalise on what makes open range-zoos so fantastic? why give them the competition of a cramped city zoo with a giraffe in a barn? make them THE place to see "megafauna" not just another option. so you may ask what happens to the city zoo? will they close down as all zoo patrons jump in their cars and head for the countryside? well, i wonder, would that be such a bad thing afterall? but regardless thats not going to happen. because just as popular as elephants are, so too are gorillas. if you split the animal collection roughly down the middle and capitilise on each zoos stregnths, the outcome is two very differnt kinds of zoos that don't really compete with one another. on one side you have the open-range zoo with its safari style experience and herds of elephants, giraffes rhino and every ungulate imaginable and then you have the city zoos with hi-tech immersion exhibts we all equally love. tropical glasshouses full of butterflies, primates and reptiles, underwater seal, tapir and pygmy hippo pools, colonies of orangutans on elevated boardwalks and gorilla troops in large naturalistic habitats. you forget we love this stuff just as much, in fact more, that we enjoy watching two bored elephants sway in the concrete corner. city zoos need elephants about as much as the world needs oil. if you contunue to deliver it to us we will accept and expect it. give us a viable alternative and no choice about it and we will equally accept that too. so thats about it. i'm not gonna give you a divided list of what animals go where. your smart people, you work it out. will there be crossovers? sure, you might find tigers at both kinds of zoo, but ultimately there is a clear definition of what each kind of zoo provides and each has equally engaging yet different animal attractions. the true 21st century zoo is in fact not one zoo at all..... it will not be a question of whether or not to visit the zoo, but which type of zoo to visit. and i doubt very much the urban zoo with all it still has to offer, will disappear...
My comment that Patrick is refering to is: I read a while ago (I apologise I cannot quote/reference it, to be truthful I cannot remember where or when I read it or how old it was) is that a survey was taken of zoo visitors of what animals they expected to see when they went to a zoo... The list was: Elephants Apes/Monkeys Hippos Big cats (read: Lions and Tigers) and I believe the last one was Birds IMHO city zoos DO NOT need large mammals to be sucessful... Zoo visitors consistantly find monkeys as the most interesting exhibit (i.e. what gave them the most entertainment/what did they spend the most time at)... Why...? Because they were the most active and appeared to be the happiest (in modern exhibits)... When you combine this with the fact that big/intellegent mammals don't do well in inner city zoos, (I consider this fact to be true simply by life expectancy... Elephants regularly die early due to foot ailments, far less than the 70 years they should be living, dolphins live a third of the time in captivity), city zoos SHOULD focus on exhibiting small active animals in interactive exhibits with education/conservation as the main focus and open range zoos focus on keeping and breeding large mammals... This is all my personal opinion but in zoos; space, time and effort is limited and cannot be wasted...
I don't think it needs saying, and patrick has said it all, but a badly kept elephant on a small property does far more damage with regards to the pubic than having no big drawcards.
From my perspective I would agree with most of what Pat has stated. As far as elephants are concerned, I think the Aussie zoos should have created an elephant sanctuary and had all the elephants there. It could have been anywhere between Melbourne and Sydney. The question of what is expected from zoos in really interesting . For me, it's not if they have lions or elephants or gorillas, the important thing is that they have EXOTICS. I go to a zoo because I cannot travel to Asia or Africa to see lions etc in the wild. If I went to a city zoo and saw a whole heap of small species such as meerkats, otters, primates etc. I would be just as happy than if I had seen rhino and elephants. Happier even as I would know that the large animals are in better conditions at the open range. And I would go to Werribee to see the larger animals. There are those that argue that zoos should specialise in natives to teach people about their own animals and there is room for such an arguement. However I get possums on my roof, bandicoots in the yard, cockatoos in the trees. If I want to see kangaroos or koalas I just pop on down to the local patch of bush. I don't need to go to a zoo to see such animals. There are also plenty of small 'centres' such as Currumbin that specialise in natives. My ideal would be the three zoos of Victoria. A city zoo specialising in small to medium exotics, a Werribee for the large, need herds and lots of space animals, and a Healesville for the natives.
Good post Jay... However I think city zoos need natives to cater to the tourist dollar so important to Australasia...
Yet another great message Patrick, and quite the statement on the zoo vs open range menagerie. I have already fired off a couple of messages on the other thread explaining how there is now a minimum of 10 American zoos that have stopped, or are planning to stop, exhibiting elephants. And all of those zoos have not seen a drop in attendance. I think that backs up what you've been saying all along, and that it's possible for zoos to maintain attendance numbers WITHOUT elephants. But perhaps urban zoos couldn't do that with all of their large mammals, thus by keeping a few on hand it can satisfy the vast majority of zoo patrons. The sister zoo concept is brilliant for the zoos that are utilizing it, as in Adelaide and Monarto in South Australia. There aren't any major collections nearby (Warrawong and Cleland are small wildlife parks with only Aussie critters) and therefore zero competition. If Monarto receives many large ungulates from the city zoo and therefore attendance transfers slightly from one to the other...then who cares because they are the same organization? Melbourne and Werribee, San Diego and San Diego WAP are other great examples. I totally concur with the whole "space" issue. Even modern, naturalistic exhibits packed with enrichment never have enough space for the animals that are forced to live their lives in captivity. Perhaps zoos like the Louisville Zoo and Point Defiance Zoo in the U.S. have got the best approach, because they have up to 6 different species of animals that are constantly rotated through 4-6 different exhibits. Isn't that much better for the acute senses of the creatures involved? Inner city immersion exhibits combined with savanna enclosures at open range sister zoos would be the best of both worlds. Add in the fact that zoos should specialize with animals that fit best into their climate and I'd be a happy man.
Also I would like to say that the exhibits that I enjoy the most at Melbourne are - The butterfly house and the large walk through aviary. This is where I see children really enjoying their time at the zoo. Not the eles or lions. have these and add in the tigers and orangs, modernize monkey treetops, send the baboons to Werribee, the elephants to a breeding centre have pygmy hippos in their exhibit, keep lions and gorillas, improve the small cats and have the new seal exhibit and Melbourne zoo would be just about perfect in my eyes. After reading this I realise that my two fav exhibits are actually of NATIVE species. But the reason I go ais for the exotics.
What more can be added to that? I think it is fairly important for inner city zoos to have some of the big names but not all of them. I.E select one big-draw species (i.e. Lion or Gorilla or Hippos) and make them into a main attraction. Make the exhibit immersive and spacious, and display lots of small animals along side it. In a way that means that the zoo needs less of these key species, because each one is taking longer to experience, or gets more attention because its more than just a case of walking up to the cage, looking over the barrier then walking off. I don't think this'll ever really be elephants, because it'd mean giving up too much valuable space. But look at London as a prime example. The old ape area contained chimps, gorillas and small monkeys. A few monkey species have gone, as have the chimps, but the new gorilla kingdom takes more time to view and is more enjoyable because there is more to look at and the animals are more interesting. Though that means less species overall- the zoo guest gets more. (Its also probably true to say the average visitor is happy with that because the gorillas and chimps were fairly similar anyway!) I'm garbling my words I think, and not making it clear what I want to say. Am I making sense?
I think zoo dont need big animals . Look at Newquay zoo, They have a pair of old lions , and most people comment on the fact that they shouldnt be there. No other big animals apart from zebra. most of their work is done with rare smaller carivores and people are happy to go and see the palm civets in their sleeping box.
Newquay zoo- on this zoo with smaller species, what is the annual visitor rate, is there otehr zoos close? just to get a picture on how effective this small creature zoo is
Sorry I didn't respond immediately; somehow I seem to have overseen this thread. Anyway, to answer patrick's & others's comments: -Once again, I did not say that every zoo should keep elephants-though I mentioned the option of solitarily kept surplus elephant bulls, on which nobody responded so far (keeping other species like blackbucks or porcupines together with the elephant would also contribute to using the capacity of the available space). What I said-and that involves both larger as well as small zoos within cities with limited space-is that a zoo with not at least one representative of the "charismatic exotic megafauna" will in general have a hard time to get its visitors unless it can put its presentation across in a very creative & captivating way and if it doesn't have much competition, i.e. other zoos keeping larger vertebrates, around. NZ Jeremy brought up some of the animals zoo visitors all over the world consider "the" zoo animals they want to see. The categories are usually: -size (the bigger, the better) -colour -"interesting" behaviour (active, moving and even responsive to visitors) -cuddly or "dangerous" ("Fierce Creatures", anyone) -"human-like"/"smart"/social (apes, bears, parrots, meerkats, dolphins...) -easily memorable name ("Panda", "Tiger", "Zebra"...) -popular due to media (warthogs, clownfish, Naked Mole rats) -rare (with a great chance that You won’t see them again the next time or somewhere else…) Keeping this in mind, one will find both large and small animals (mostly mammals, a few birds and even fewer for vertebrates or even invertebrates-actually all in all species one can find represented in zoos worldwide). Therefore, one can have an interesting zoo for the public with mainly small critters unless some of them fit into the category mentioned above-but nevertheless, at least one representative of the "Big & Tall" section is expected, may it be a big cat, large ungulates or great apes. And it's not just the expectation of the visitors; think about the educational factor: what conveys better the diversity of the animal kingdom than representing tiny animals with the "background" of a true giant to compare and marvel at? Humans are always fascinated by sizes or superlatives per se; just look around and You'll find that weird aspect of the human mind represented in architecture, arts, electronics, food, sports, plastic surgery...etc. Cutting down on the number of large, inadequately kept animals in a small city zoo on its way to a "modern zoo" is a good thing I fully support; but beware of cutting away ALL large animals. Look at the example of the Central Park Zoo; at least the Polar Bears were kept in consideration to this aspect. Or the nice Rheine Zoo… If small city zoos follow the maxime of the current Director of Tierpark Dählihölz: "More spaces for less animals", I'm the first guy giving standing ovations, as I want to see and keep healthy and happy, adequately well-kept animals in a modern zoo. But be careful and integrate also at least one larger species popular in the public's eye into that concept; otherwise You might end up with a single enormous “meerkat exhibit” as "the zoo" and see the people pretty soon leaving for the neighbouring zoo that has "real animals". -The "Open Range" Zoo is an interesting idea-but it's worth to dispute whether this concept works equally all over the world. The idea of "Safari Parks" was quite popular in Europe in the 1960/70s, but soon dwindled down: Germany f.e. just has two of them left. And is the open range zoo really always and everwhere the solution-or even possible? Depends on the species and the zoo (setting). One barrier many zoos face on the way to this dual zoo system is the in the other thread already mentioned, most important one: lack of money. I don't know whether Australian or New Zealand zoos have some real-life, gold-defecating cash cows in their animal collections (if so, please breed & share them!)-but the zoos I know of usually, especially the smaller ones, just have barely enough money to keep one institution running. Having two zoos to care for would be too much for many of them (think of the Berlin example). Secondly, in overcrowded areas like many parts of Europe, apt properties for large open-range zoos are hard to find-and expensive, too-which leads us consequently back to Point One...Don't get me wrong, though: many zoos have institutions for breeding purposes, food storage outside of their zoo location; but a second facility opened and built & run to please the public? Thirdly, in consideration of the dwindling amount of available resources: will many people have the money to spend on transportation for the additional one or two hours to the open-range zoo? Especially as it’s far away from the city? That might sound ridiculous-yet after getting my first shock today when receiving my gas bill at the petrol station and then getting my second shock when hearing the cost estimate for a train ticket, I dare to imagine how things are going to change zoo-wise if this is getting worse. Maybe it would be good to sometimes look beyond one's nose and think on a more international level. Don't judge from the one or two zoos in Your close neighbourhood that don't have lions that thus all zoos could do well without lions and have more of the very work-intensive butterfly houses instead; better compare different zoos, in different settings, in different parts of the world before coming to a prematurely conclusion, generalising all zoos. I also doubt that an array of many small critters will make the visitors stay longer at the individual exhibit and pay more attention. What is needed is a generally better presentation-but that should involve both the big and the small animals. Though I admire a lot of what David Hancocks has to say about zoos, I do not agree with him on the aspect of an ideal future zoo having no or only very few of the popular species, but instead a lot of interactive “electronic gadgets”. Computers and video games can play a role in the educational zoo program, but can and will never replace the (direct) animal (sensoric) contact. This is also illustrated by the fact that Hancocks’ praised “Electronic Zoo” in the UK has as I’ve heard so far not become reality after all those years… I agree with Patrick on two aspects: 1.) The current status of zoos could and should be improved for a zoo apt for the 21st century 2.) Not every zoo can and should keep all the popular animals from A-Z if they can’t be housed properly. BTW, this is also true for ALL animals, not just the “holy cows” like Elephants, Great Apes or dolphins. But I disagree on the assumption that people will simply switch their attention from one animal to another if You simply take the popular animals away and improve the presentation of the “nerd” animal; some animals just don’t have “the look” (=do not qualify for any of the categories mentioned above), while others are popular all over the world. Another thing I disagree on: “I believe that most city zoo exhibits are roughly half the size they should be”. Once again: Depends on the species and the zoo (setting). Additionally, one should not forget the average visitor’s point of view. Though there have been reproaches of projecting hang-up opinions about what visitors aspect of a zoo, one should not forget that we’re here at a forum for zoo fans-which means that most people here have way more knowledge and interest in animals and zoos than the mass of people visiting zoos. Therefore it’s quite difficult for us to judge what Average Joe wants to see-for we here appretiate animals like Mountain Anoas, Palawan Hornbills or Cuban Iguanas to which most visitors absolutely can not relate to. I personally can judge from what I got as impressions and opinions presented by various people when I did zoo guiding tours at my local zoo during my studying time, while working in zoos, reading zoo literature (the AZA magazine had some interesting articles about that subject), talking to zoo staff/colleagues, when I visit the local zoo with friends or family and when I simply listen to the comments of zoo visitors as well as reading the comments in zoo fan forums about zoo visitor remarks. Summa summarum the following can be said about Average Joe at the zoo: On the one hand, the average modern western visitor likes if the animal is not presented to him/her in a bare concrete cage, but in a naturalistic setting (or what he/she thinks is a naturalistic setting…) and if the animal seems to be healthy and enjoy itself. On the other hand, the same visitor is soon frustrated if the animal can not easily spotted and/or is not active on command (see comments on f.e. the new Zurich Lion exhibit or Frankfurt’s Clouded Leopard exhibit as well as on various newer exhibits), certain expectations are not met (crocodiles have to be big & mean…etc) and is mostly not willing to spend a lot of time on reading the info sign and to be patient. The animal is supposed to be “there” now and “entertain”-as one as a customer has paid for that entertainment! Knowledge about animal behaviour is usually scarce, so that sometimes normal behaviour is considered abnormal (“The animal sleeps too much”) and vice versa. All in all the average zoo visitor hasn’t changed much from the one of the 19th century-and won’t probably in a future zoo. Nevertheless, the changes postulated by both patrick and Hancocks to bring zoos to a higher level are needed to be undertaken-among them the reduction of the numbers of animals kept in zoos to improve the living conditions for the ones kept. But in my opinion, this, with a grass-roots level change of the visitor’s expectations (which will be the hardest task), will only be made possible by a slow, not a radical process. And about the big animals in a city zoo: let me compare this to a beautiful diamond necklace; not only surrounding material (i.e. the way of husbandry and presentation) is important, but also the ratio of the different gemstones: with too many big ones, it looks pretentious and not too elegant; with too many small and insignificant gems, it might be easily overseen and neglected. To find an individual golden mean should be the way to go.
I strongly believe that many city zoos need to improve conditions for their large animals; bears, big cats, rhinos, hippos, elephants are big apes are usually those whose enclosures are far from good in many if not most city zoos. Animal welfare is way more important in my opinion then presenting 4 species of great apes and rhinos AND hippos.... however, are I agree with most of your points. One remark regarding the idea to keep surplus bull elephants in smaller enclosures unsiutable for large breeding groups: I do not think that will meet the need of the bull at all. First, bulls are social creatures too, even if they don`t develop the deep, life-long bonds of female elephants. They should not kept alone permanently. Second, if a bull is kept alone, he will need a lot of stimulation and enrichment to keep him busy and avoid stereotypic behavoir (a bull elephant rocking or swaying for hours won`t please any visitors...). That means, it might need MORE space and a better equipped enclosure then a medium-sized female group to keep him active and avoid boredom! Housing any elephant on 1,000 m² or less (or a little more...) will cause boredom and serious health problems like arthritis and foot abscesses, be it a lone bull or a small group of females. That is totally unacceptable for a modern zoo and if they stick to that because having elephants in the collection is more important then animal welfare, they will be heavily attacked by animal right groups, and rightly so.
I believe the evolution of zoos is to --> Open range/park type setting... While city zoo's will tend to have one of the "marquee" animals in each immersion area (we have seen that since the late 80's think Ituri forest at SDZ), i.e.: Tigers in a group of Asian rainforest exhibits Rhino in an African Savannah area Gorilla in a group African rainforest exhibits etc... I agree with Pat though that a zoo could be successful (maybe even [in]famous) with small animals... Especially if they were active in interactive, attractive exhibits... Maybe only people like me would go, I love small mammals and carnivores. Reptile, Noctural, Amphibian and Invertabrate Houses + Aquariums... These are my favourite exhibits whatever zoo I happen to be at they using contain the most active animals... Lets face it the majority of the time we go to a zoo to see the "Marquee" large mammals they are standing still or asleep...
sun wukong, i can't belive you brought up gorillas, lions and tigers in an attempt to give your argument merit.......(again!) do you actually read what i write?
but jeremy - I never said that urban zoos should only have small animals. I said they shouldn't have big animals. i made it clear that pygmy hippo, tapirs big cats and great apes are all suitable for urban zoos and indeed offer those zoos unique and deserving star attractions that rival the giraffes, hippos, rhinos and elephants of open range zoos.
for a good idea of peoples expectations when they visit a zoo read this article. The Sunday Herald - Scotland's award-winning independent newspaper I've posted it on another thread. The big animals, eg ungulates and lions are boring because they don't so much. The more interesting ones for kids especially are the nes that are very active. Strangly enough this is often small creatures such as otters, meerkats and primates.
It's funny how cultural events such as movies influence the animals that children enjoy. Before "The Lion King" average zoogoers didn't know what the hell a meerkat was, and then they were everywhere! Penguins have also seen a resurgence, due to "March of the Penguins" and "Surfs Up". But otters, meerkats and any species of primate are always fun to watch for kids.
@Yassa: about bull elephants-no, not all of them are as social as Emmen's bull. Many of them spend their lives on their own or randomly with some other bulls (especially the younger ones) and visit the female groups very rarely-if ever. Not every elephant bull there has the chance to mate even once. Will a solitarily kept elephant bull need at least as much enrichment as the one kept close to females? Maybe. Could a second bull in an occasionally seperatable enclosure be useful considering socialisation ? Maybe. Mentioned foot and joint problems are not just/mainly a product of the size of the enclosure (i.e. an elephant in a large exhibit can develop these, too), but of missing/deficient foot care by zoo staff and improper terrain. All in all, I'd like to know what realistic alternative to deal with the surplus bulls You suggest. After all, I don't think that most of the bull exhibits I have seen next to the females' enclosures aren't that large either...and the few elephant parks like the one in Spain don't have unlimited space and resources, too... And about improving living conditions: this is easily demanded, but much harder to be turned into practice. And interestingly, very few people complain about inadequate living conditions of animals beside the mentioned " crowd favourites". About animal right groups: I appretiate a fair and pertinent comment-but these groups are just usually railing against everything and everyone not following their agenda-and quite often display a considerable & frightening lack of knowledge when it comes to animals and animal husbandry in particular - and a certain lack of morals, too. @patrick: Maybe it's time to stop accusing one another of not reading each other's post-as You don't seem to have read mine Yourself. "Tiger" was mentioned as an example for a well-known animal name, "lions"(which I can't recall using before) as response to a remark by another user. And gorilla-? I hope that I don't have to quote myself now bit by bit, do I? Nunc? @NZ Jeremy: How many are there of Your "kind" when it comes to the mentioned favoured animals (members of this and similar forums, including me, not counting)? Most likely not enough to keep a normal zoo running. And while some big animals have the tendency to rest a second or two (smart compared to increasingly nervous Homo sapiens), at least people can see them most of the time-which isn't the case of the small critters hiding and sleeping (yes, even meerkats, monkeys and especially otters like to do that). And if the big ones are moving-oh, You should see the crowds! Popular media can do a lot to make animals "famous": I've seen kids pass elephants and lions to see Naked Mole Rats - thanks to Kim Possible. However, I heard the escorting adults suggest to go to said big mammals after looking at the mole rats (for 5s...), and the kids were eager to follow...
As the concept "open-range zoo" has been mentioned various times again: like I said above, it's questionable whether this concept is really "the future" and can be used everywhere. Werribee wasn't the first one to come up with this idea-also see mentioned "Safari Parks", Animal Kingdom or the German term "Tierpark", which means "Animal PARK" and is synonymous to "zoo". It's just another version of the zoo concept which can be applied when enough free space is available and the weather is apt. I personally think that the future of zoos is that of a) "bioparks" within or close to the cities, combining zoo, botanical garden, aquarium and natural history museum into one institution (think of the Arizona Desert Museum, f.e.) with focus on the education & entertainment of the visitors, and b) large "conservation centers" not opened to the public, shared by all zoos, where breeding groups, surplus animals, confiscated exotic pets... can be adequately kept and scientific studies can be undertaken. These centers could also take advantage of the different climate they're in-with centers in warmer climates having the largest breeding groups of, say. Dama gazelles, Arabian leopards or Cuban crocodiles, while the ones "in the cold" keep larger breeding groups of Andean flamingo, European mink or Mountain tapirs. But even in this inner city "biopark" I could imagine large animals like giraffes, wisents or hippos-as "shop window" representatives of the "megavertebrates"-being kept adequately.
