Yes! I would love pygmy hippos as well as seeing something done with the Monkey House. I know pygmy hippos are considered a species of importance under current TAG recommendations. Any word on what would happen with the Monkey House? Would it feature primates, or would it do something else?
Well from what was said in the interview, the Pygmy Hippos are supposed to be included in the Monkey House. I have no idea how that would work, though. I think small monkeys were mentioned also. ~Thylo
Where did that come from, though? I'm totally happy with that plan but did that come from an actual source? ~Thylo
You know, I was wondering that myself.... I must have heard it from someone at the zoo some time ago, because now I can't even remember how I know this. I remember it specifically, though, because I was so disappointed when NZP had to close its basement Invertebrates exhibit due to the budget.
Perhaps as a PS:. In an ideal world, the Monkey House should be used for some purpose that makes use of its architecture. Many historic buildings are made structurally sound with necessary egress and signage, but then erect artificial--even temporary--walls as in art galleries. This renders what is inside this hermetically-sealed inner box almost completely unrelated to the architecture that surrounds it. Granted, given the climate and animals of Madagascar!, It wasn't really possible to utilize the beautiful round outdoor pavilions of the old lion house for exhibits. But wouldn't it be grand to have those pavilions open for some purpose, even as indoor or outdoor balconies to sit while watching an exhibit! Or to sit within the bars and watch visitors go by, realizing what it's like to be on display! The reason Invertebrates will probably happen is because it fits the quick/simple model. New interior walls with a path leading from one end to the other. What about an exhibit that keeps the existing brick walls and windows exposed? This is the unspoken wish of landmark preservationists--to see the building used in a way that joins the exhibit and the exhibit space in some inherent way. Even leave a cage standing that can still be entered to see exhibits. We don't have to sacrifice splendid architecture of the past entirely in adapting the building to new use. And I for one think Zoo Center could easily be converted back into a new facility with surrounding yards and a new barn for Asian elephants. The magnitude and elegance of this building is far too great for its current purposing. Let's use these iconic Heins and LaFarge buildings with purpose.
Just out of curiosity: what are the plans for renovating African Plains? This is the first I’m hearing of it.
Yeah, that is another challenge Bronx has that many other American zoos, although not all, don't: making entirely indoor or indoor/outdoor exhibits when dealing with historic architecture. I would also be fine with an invertebrate focus for the Monkey House. It would compliment the rest of the collection and be something none of the other Bronx exhibit areas focus on, although Madagascar!, Jungle World, and Congo Gorilla Forest all have their invertebrate habitats. I just hope they present invertebrates in an exciting way, which I think is likely.
It's been a while since I read the interview (I don't even know where it find it tbh) but I recall the idea being to create more interactive areas for visitors and to include smaller animals like dung beetles, birds, and I think mole rats and dik-dik? I'm not sure if there are any plans to have the rhinos, Cheetahs, or warthog be apart of this area. ~Thylo
Got a source for that Africa thing? Also for the monkey house, I could easily see them going off the success of Madagascar and doing more or less the same thing with a different ecosystem.
It's been reported on here multiple times from various sources if you look back through.. I'll try and find the interview for everything again, though. ~Thylo
With apologies to slender-horned gazelles, it is normal that any zoo repurposes some exhibits. I would agree with AmbikaFan that Bronx Zoo is still too static. Bronx zoo definitely is not a position that it has no need to develop. It is missing surprisingly many visitor favorites. Others are represented by geriatric individuals or otherwise are not really a magnet for visitors they should have been. Pinnipeds, polar and other bears, elephants, hippos, great apes other than gorillas on top of my head. I could imagine half a dozen of grand new exhibits around these missing ABCs, which would fit in zoo's acres of parkland and highlight WCS conservation projects. What you seem not to think about is that new animals and exhibits generate public enthusiasm, this brings sponsors and only afterwards conservation projects get funding. The zoo has broken this chain and sponsors stopped coming. All these conservation projects worldwide run by WCS are wonderful. However, the zoo needs to change actively on its grounds, too, to stay relevant and continue to support conservation. For years, I believed that zoos should more support conservation in the wild. Now it seems that there are zoos which problem is that they support conservation in the wild too much.
It's not a repurposed exhibit? It's a new enclosure that was constructed. And personally I don't think completely remodeling the ZooCenter and Children's Zoo, and then revamping/renovating most of the enclosures in World of Reptiles while also adding brand new displays for various herps and birds across the zoo to be the same as "repurposing some exhibits". The zoo has California Sea Lions, Brown Bears, and Asian Elephants. They have plans for hippos, and I'm not sure why the zoo has to have more than one Great Ape. As for Polar Bears, those are becoming increasingly few and far between in US zoos so you'll have a harder and harder time finding good zoos if that's a species they have to have. Honestly, though, it's a little tiring constantly hearing the same complaint that Bronx is in need of more ABCs because apparently elephants, two rhino species, giraffes, zebras, every Big Cat except Jaguar, gorillas, baboons, small monkeys, lemurs, prairie dogs, hyenas, sea lions, otters, sloths, anteaters, bears, penguins, eagles, ostrich/Emu, parrots, large boas/pythons, and crocodiles just don't count because they don't also have hippos. I don't think the zoo should do nothing, I want the zoo to continue to grow. I want to see older exhibits further renovated, I want to see old buildings open, I want to see new areas built. I'm just saying it's not like the zoo is in shambles or have all these horribly outdated exhibits that desperately need razing over. I know new exhibits build momentum and bring new visitors in, which is exactly why the zoo has been doing the smaller projects it can afford and also building other amenities visitors flock in for such as dino safaris, ziplines, and alcohol. I'm sorry but it's just factually incorrect to say that Bronx has just sat there and done nothing for the last decade. No they haven't done anything enormous in that time and I do want them to, but again they don't have anything like small concrete bear grottos or a row of corncrib primate cages housing rainforest species in direct sunlight. Bronx is growing, it's just going slower than some of its competitors. I think that's ok, because at the end of the day they're doing what they can to get themselves to a better position than they're in now. That's not being static. Slow going ≠ static. I guess that goes to show that some people are never really satisfied... ~Thylo
So is the issue with government funding/management or with non-profit funding/management? My understanding is that the latter is generally more reliable. I thought that the WCS received a large amount in grants and donations; I guess maybe it's not enough to support five zoos and countless conservation projects? That must be really frustrating considering how many potential philanthropists live in New York and its suburbs. I think it's also sort of a case-by-case situation as to what zoos are able to accomplish. For example, Smithsonian NZP (which is operated by the federal government's Smithsonian Institute, not a non-profit) has indeed seen some stagnation and financial struggles, while other publicly-run zoos like North Carolina Zoo (run by NC state government) is planning to build an entirely new addition. Both have fundraising non-profit orgs, but I think are still funded primarily with government dollars. That's not exactly true. Large-scale projects can also be funded through local or state sales tax measures; that's how most of Fresno Zoo's expansions and renovations in the past several years have been funded.
This is very powerful. You really hit the nail on the head that the zoo is missing many favorites. They promised 13 years ago to stop holding elephants, and have not replaced favorites who have died like Tundra. The four orphaned brown bears seem almost like a happy accident in a zoo that would now have no other bear species at all. People would die to see pinnipeds besides sea lions; there hasn't been a walrus in New York since the Aquarium lost theirs and didn't replace him. For a premiere zoo, there are just too many big species missing or soon-to-missing. I think @Jurek7 has perhaps gotten to the crux of the matter. Has WCS's unparalleled in situ conservation come at the expense of its home collections? I think it's a real possibility. Every new species is smaller than one it replaced, as if the collection plan is determined by the available existing accommodations. For a zoo of this size, the collection should be determined by what species are most endangered and what SSPs need more members breeding. With the state of Andean bears what it is, both the Bronx and Queens should be part of the SSP. Same with Pallas Cats and Prospect Park. And why pygmy hippos? They'd require less in accommodations than Nile hippos? I wonder if the balance between in situ giving and conservation at home has indeed gone past what is healthy. As @Jurek7 says, what is in the Bronx Zoo is what will get prospective donors excited enough to give. I consider myself a zoo "smart fan," but even I don't know exactly everything WCS gives to, and even if I did, experiencing an elephant up close would do far more to convince me that the world shouldn't be without them than lists of elephant conservation programs. The two work hand in hand, and the zoo is responsible for introducing adults of tomorrow to what could be lost. No one cares about wild animals "in theory.". We need people to be able to experience animals--even the big ones that may require more expense. If we're deciding on the priority of what most needs to be bred in human care instead on what buildings we already have and how to avoid new exhibit cost, then maybe the money going to in situ conservation has increased and increased without full thought to the consequences here at home. Bravo, @Jurek7, for figuring this out and putting it out there. I'm sure some will see this as a stinging indictment, but I think you may have hit the nail on the head.
I couldn't find a link. Also to add to the current discussion, I think the problem with the Bronx Zoo is that there is a lot of space just sitting there. I think that there's a lot more that WCS could do to be more effective with their space. For example, they could make the Bronx River parking lot mutli-leveled ala Cincinatti and get rid of Asia parking. That space could then make a baller elephant exhibit and fit in some other Asian hoofstock. You could also put one big dhole enclosure next to the Tiger mountain enclosure on the left and make a rotation system so the dholes and tigers can share that one. There are many other things I could suggest but I'd need a map of the Bronx Zoo and a way to make annotations
The problem is when a largely-run government entity finds that elected leaders don't want to look like they are over-spending for fear of re-election. Couple that with a real recession like 2008, and the cuts to WCS were brutal:I seem to remember staff cuts of 40%. And therein lies the problem:. With drastic cuts, routine maintance of the collection and physical superstructure must be the first to be cut, because staff is needed to take care of the animals. NZP is an excellent example of this. Federal funds had been reduced and reduced by 2000, and with staff on the federal salary system, all the funding was going into staffing. Within a few years, there was big trouble:. The head vet was discovered to be falsifying records to make a series of deaths look less damaging, and a federal study was commissioned to assess the structural safety and amenities of all campus buildings. The ratings were eviscerating, pointing a long finger at the effects of deferred maintenance. One building, The Australia Pavilion next to the Panda House, had to be demolished immediately as it was such a risk to the public with a grade of F. Only the Panda House, refurbished recently for the arrival of the two new pandas, got a grade above C. Even the Great Ape House and Tiger Hill (then only 20-25 years old) got D's. This was a crisis, and that's how government-funded operations have to operate--under the pressure of crisis management. Only by act of Congress was a capital campaign funded that attempted to bring its buildings into a state of decent repair, build the Asia Trail habitats, spruce up the pinniped pools, and renovate the Bird House. As you say, Friends of the National Zoo (FONZ) was founded around 1960 as a not-for-profit arm to help the zoo, but its membership can't provide the large sums necessary for buildings and their upkeep. The salaries are set in stone, and the building monies were one-time rulings. The zoo still struggles enough that the Invertebrates exhibit closed to save the $1 million annual operating costs. Where NZP differs from the Bronx is that its unparalleled research labs are funded by the Smithsonian, and so may be its research/conservation efforts abroad. WCS is given a block of money, supplements it with corporate, foundation, and individual donations, and chooses how to spend it. The balance between conservation abroad and programming here is a decision entirely within their power and could easily explain how the zoo seems to be in a much different financial position at home than other zoos that are growing and developing. We can only hope that revenue from the TV show will spark renewed interest in the zoo and that these funds will be used for capital improvements. Let's hope that the show isn't cancelled because the others and their facilities seem more exciting....
The priorities of the organization’s leadership (Board, CEO and fundraising team) have not been focused on the zoos and aquarium. The results are unfortunately becoming increasingly clear. The potential impact of the top-rated program “The Zoo” and the outstanding talent of the staff of the zoos and aquarium are being squandered. So many needs and innovative ideas are simply not being addressed or advanced. Very discouraging.
I would not raise the NC Zoo as an example of a zoo with good funding for new additions. The zoo has not added anything major in nearly 15 years at this point (renovations have occurred in this time though). They now are adding Asia and Australia but these have been pushed back several years from when they were first discusses in detail. As well the demolition of the African Pavilion has been pushed back years at a time. Either way the good thing about being a state zoo is constant money for the operating budget, the issue with being a state zoo is funding for improvements and a maintenance backlog. I come from the opinion that not every zoo needs something new consistently, bringing in more species and newer exhibits can often expand the workforce of the zoo and maintenance budget among other things. Especially for smaller zoos their is the threat of expanding past what you could ever sustain without relying heavily on the local tax base. Bronx is obviously not a small zoo, yet in discussions about new exhibits we ignore the sustainability of it all.
The bear cubs arrived in 2010, Tundra died in 2017. The zoo also had Grizzly Bears since at least the 90's, probably longer. That's like saying if in 2021 the zoo goes out of Indian Rhinos it's a happy accident that the zoo started keeping them in 2012 or else they'd be out of rhinos. And they are replacing Tundra-- with Chinese Dhole, a highly endangered species desperately in need of new holders in the US which fit much better in the enclosure than Polar Bears ever did. The aquarium went out of Walrus because the enclosure wasn't adequate for a group, and their animals were needed elsewhere for breeding. Harbor Seals can't still be seen as a second pinniped species at both Central Park and the aquarium. As for the elephants, that was 13 years ago and management has changed. No one knows what will become of Bronx's elephant program but I honestly do doubt that they'll be phasing them out until the silly court cases against them actually go somewhere. I also doubt they'll be building a massive breeding complex, though. In reality I can see the zoo becoming a sort of elephant retirement home, similar to San Diego. This way, the zoo can still continue exhibiting elephants for visitors in order to boost their conservation effect while also not having to lose many of their equally endangered but much less often kept hoofstock species in order to build a new exhibit. But besides the elephants, what are all these other big name species the zoo is apparently getting rid of? Jurek mentions that many of the zoo's ABCs are represented by geriatric individuals but, aside form the elephants, which species are those exactly? But... that is exactly what the zoo is doing... The zoo already has programs for large carnivores, large ungulates, large primates, etc. and has had some of them for longer than any of us have been alive for. Almost all of their newer programs are for highly endangered species that are often ignored by major zoos and therefore are in even greater need of additional holders. Freshwater turtles, small rodents, passerines, hornbills, non-famous hoofstock, obscure carnivores, venomous snakes, waterfowl, these are the programs that everyone on this forum complains that zoos don't put enough effort into, but then when Bronx does, all of a sudden everyone complains that the zoo is putting too much effort into those species and not enough effort into secondary ape complexes and ABC baby factories. It's the same with their conservation. Everyone complains about every single other zoo out there saying they don't focus enough on conservation; then, when the WCS makes conservation their priority, everyone complains that they're spending too much on conservation. The zoo just can't win here. The zoo single-handedly started the Maleo program, they're the only ones actively breeding adjutant stork, they have arguably the largest Cuora collection in the States, they import gharials for other zoos, they restarted the Gelada program, and species like Indian Muntjac, Sambar, Barasingha, and Pink Pigeon are only still around in US zoos today almost solely because of Bronx and San Diego alone. These are the types of things people beg zoos to be doing, but now we're criticizing Bronx for it? And it's not like they aren't bringing in crowd favorites at the same time. Indian Gharial (a large crocodilian), Komodo Dragon, Aldabran Giant Tortoise, Angolan Colobus, Giant Anteater, Linneaus's Two-Toed Sloth, North Island Kiwi, and Little Blue Penguin are all new additions from the last five years or so, most of which had brand new displays built just for them. Somehow they get left out when discussing the zoo's recent activity. I really don't understand your point, because you're complaining that the zoo should be doing something that it is already doing but just not for the species you want, even though the species you claim you want are the ones they are actually doing it for... The WCS works with and breeds Andean Bears. They focus on small, rarely kept felids like Pallas's Cat and Black-Footed Cat at Prospect Park. Bronx can't just have every program they have at all their zoos also on their grounds. They already do double up for Snow Leopards, Red Pandas (two subspecies across three zoos), American Bison, California Sea Lions (kept at all WCS collections), Black-Tailed Prairie Dog, Mohol Bushbaby, Grizzly Bear, Tufted Deer, Southern Pudu, Golden Lion Tamarin, Common Dwarf Mongoose, and undoubtedly others I'm forgetting off of the top of my head. The individual collections need variability. The Andean Bears are probably the most popular animals at Queens, and exhibiting them at Bronx would rob Queens of visitors who will now go to Bronx to see them along with other species they desire. As for Pygmy Hippos, they are the significantly more endangered hippo that is in a much more dire need of holders than Common. They are also easier to house than Common, which need to be kept in groups of 3-4 and require nearly elephant-sized amounts of space to house properly when one considers their housing and filtration requirements. Yes the zoo has the space for Common, but they'd need to displace or completely phase-out many existing smaller species in order to house them, a move which would then be criticized by all of us. By going into Pygmy Hippos, they satisfy a visitor's (and apparently all of ZooChat's) desire for hippos, bring attention to a much more obscure species which visitors will still likely find desirable (they're basically seen as "forever hippo babies" by many), become an additional holder/breeder for a top priority SSP species, and are able to continue to house and breed many other even more obscure and endangered species both around the zoo and probably within the same house the hippos go into. I'm having trouble finding it myself. The website I know it was once posted on no longer has any results for it. I'll keep digging, though. I've had similar ideas in regards to parking space and an elephant complex. Remember that there's a service road and some staff buildings over there, though, and an elephant habitat built in place of the parking lot couldn't be much larger than the existing one in reality. A parking garage costs a lot of money, of course, and that fact has already kept Smithsonian's plans for one nothing more than just that, plans. As for the Tiger Mountain idea, I'm pretty sure there's a lot of off-exhibit tiger housing behind the exhibit. The zoo has roughly 12 tigers between two subspecies afterall. Remember, just because it's empty space on a map doesn't mean it's empty in reality. A lot of the "woods" on the map actually hold a lot of off-exhibit breeding and staff compounds. Not to say there aren't vacant areas because obviously there are. ~Thylo
