Bronx Zoo Bronx Zoo review

ZooLover4Life- Point taken, and I have deleted my comment about "flipping out." I did read the other comment directed towards you, and it did seem unfair and somewhat rude, but I didn't get to reference that in my previous post.
I didn't miss the tigers, but I did have difficulty seeing them (this was before I wore glasses.) But it sounds like you have seen them with ease. Same goes for Bronx, where you might have had trouble seeing tigers, but I've seen them relatively easily. In most cases, it's basically just if the animal is in an area that isn't easily viewable.
I'll differ from you on this point, and I'd say that most animals are generally more satisfied in larger exhibits. And trust me, I'm fully aware that you do not support very small exhibits, I was just saying that I think they prefer larger exhibits over normally-sized ones.
I do volunteer at Beardsley, and I'm well aware about the quality of the cat exhibits (all except the leopard are small for their inhabitants, especially lynx). And while I enjoy being able to hear the tigers and see them within feet of me at Beardsley, I prefer seeing them right up against me with glass.
What you claim is "fact" and not "opinion" about Bronx must be put in perspective. I expect the large crowds and high prices at large zoos like Bronx, but that's one half of it. I also expect high-class exhibits, good viewing, and a variety of species, which I have found at Bronx. At smaller zoos, I expect lower prices and smaller crowds, but not top-notch enclosures. And compared to some other attractions in NYC, Bronx is cheap. It's all a matter of perspective, and a different look is necessary for each zoo you visit, in order for you to find its own charm.

 

I'm joking around about the enrichment. Obviously enrichment is important.

 

Yes all preference. I want to hear it as it walks by. Quite an awesome sight. That siberian they have is enormous. I notice they don't keep them together? Did the big one try to kill the small one?

Yeah lynx exhibit is tiny. They could easy make the exhibit bigger and people could still see them easily. Have you see the bear exhibit at forest park zoo in springfield? Now that's too small. That's the entire cage they're kept in. That zoo is Way too small for the amount of animals they have

 

I appreciate your questions/comments about Beardsley, but in the sake of keeping this thread relevant to the topic, you can PM me about any thoughts about Beardsley.

 

North Carolina would like to have a word with you.

 

I am quite confused by your posts zoolover! I mean, first off, you complained about the one or two small moats Bronx has and then said you liked Southwick's Tiger enclosure moat which seems huge and makes it difficult to see the animals. As for the bushes obstructing the views, this is really only valid for the Lowland Nyala enclosure and I can't say I disagree with you on that one.

Also, you may want to include photos of the Bronx enclsorues you're complaining about because it really takes away from your argument if you only provide visual evidence for your side and don't compare and point out the flaws you're talking about.

Secondly, you do realize that Central Park Zoo and Bronx Zoo are partner zoos and are run by the same exact people, right? Same with Prospect Park Zoo, Queens Zoo, and New York Aquarium. They're called the Wildlife Conservation Society and they control all five collections and do great conservation work both domestic and abroad.

No offense intended to you but this is a very close minded and incorrect of what zoos are. While, yes, zoos are a form of entertaining and some of the animals in zoos are there merely for our enjoyment (Meerkats for example), many species in zoos are there because they're highly endangered in the wild and, in some cases (like Bronx's Pere David's Deer), they're Extinct in the Wild. Animals are not in zoos purely for our enjoyment, at least not in many collections. Some small, private zoos may exist and keep animals simply for financial purposes (and even some big name zoos like a certain hell hole across the pond) but most, like Bronx and the other AZA zoos, exist for a mix of educational, conservation, and entertainment purposes. To say that zoos exist for simply one of those three reasons is absurd and is not viewpoint that can be taken seriously.

And what's wrong with huge enclosures? Bronx certainly isn't a zoo with many huge enclosure but several are a few acres certainly. I personally don't see the problem with it. In fact, all the really big ones I can think of off the top of my head are stocked with lots of animals so it's pretty easy to see them. The only one I can see as a valid complaint may be the Thompson's Gazelle enclosure as they do tend to stay on the far side which is quite some distance away.

And yeah, I love Bronx, I'm a huge fan, but I know it has its flaws. I can make you a list of what I think the major downsides of the zoo are if you want. But overall it really is one of the better zoos in the United States and many of your complaints aren't really valid. Sorry!


@everyone else, am I the only one getting a Yorik vibe from this thread?

~Thylo

 

Zoo's don't exist for conservation. That's laughable and misguided if you believe that. Even Sea world doesn't exist for conservation. Talk to any true conservationist. Do they have release/reintro in the wild programs for all the animals? They're not a sanctuary. If it's about conservation than why have animals like raccoon's? LOL

I go to the zoo because I like looking at the animals. Period. As do most people. Bunch of screaming children just like looking at the animals as well. As far as the "education" stuff you can just watch tv documentaries and get same/more info than what is on the sign.

Zoo's MAINLY exist for people's enjoyment. Nothing wrong with that at all.

 

Another poster? Check my ip. Yes multiple people have the same views I have. Read low start reviews on bronx zoo on yelp. I've talk to numerous people who said same thing I said.

 

First off, SeaWorld is at the bottom of my list of zoological collections that stand for conservation purposes so no argument there And the answer to your question about reintroductions is a yes for many zoos. Maybe not for all of their species but for many, yes. Many zoos breed endangered species both on-show and off-show for reintroduction purposes. Roger Williams breeds and releases New England Cottontails. Beardsley breeds and releases Brook Trout and have participated in releasing Golden Lion Tamarin (along with Smithsonian), Red Wolf, and most recently Andean Condor. How do you think species that were once Extinct in the Wild have found there way back? Species like Formosan Sika Deer, Mauritius Kestrel, and Przewalski's Wild Horse are all species that were once totally gone in the wild but have been reintroduced thanks to many zoos like Bronx! The Howlett's collections in the UK even work with releasing Brown Hyena, Western Lowland Gorilla, and Eastern Black Rhinoceros! And as we speak I believe there's work going on to reintroduce Scimitar-Horned Oryx (a species only found in zoos) back into the wild. I believe the current interest in breeding Guam Kingfisher and Guam Rail in captivity is to eventually release them back as well.

And for the record, Bronx is owned and run by "true conservationists". As mentioned before the WCS works out in the wild and does real conservation work. They protect species, defend crucial wild habitats, and have programs in place to fight poaching in both Africa and Asia at least. They employ real scientists who work out in the field and study many of the species they work with both in the wild and in the zoos they own.

As for keeping very common species such as raccoons in zoos, while, as I stated before, many of those species are there for entertainment purposes (can't fund a breeding program for Black-Footed Cats if you don't have the Asian Small-Clawed Otters to draw in the masses) but also some are there because they were rescued from the wild and the zoos took them in. This is the case for most, if not all, of the raccoons, opossums, White-Tailed Deer, and Sandhill Cranes found in American zoos. Most of our native birds of prey in captivity were rescues from the wild, including all the Bald Eagles in captivity over here!

For the record I find being able to personally see, hear, and sometimes touch an animal is much more educational than watching a documentary. And if zoos aren't educational or conservational at all then why do they have signage and sometimes even whole displays set up for teaching people about conservation??! Like the poaching displays at Bronx's Tiger Mountain and the whole room dedicated to talking about birds driven to extinction by Humans in World of Birds!

And as I stated before, saying a zoo exists purely for conservation, education, or entertainment is an incorrect view and is wrong for many reasons. They exists for all of the above and while some lean more towards one as oppose to another they all have a little bit of everything. Bronx especially!

And I saw your post which Chlidonias deleted. All I have to say in response is, again, something I already informed you of. I can give you a detailed list of everything I find wrong with Bronx. Just because it's my favorite zoo doesn't mean I think it's the greatest thing ever and is completely perfect. Of course it has its fair share of flaws (some of which they can control, others they can't) and the majority of the problems I have are also the same problems most people on here have with it!

~Thylo

 

- The point of zoos is conservation. The bronx zoo hopes that any visit to the zoo will inspire a change. The WCS spent 90 million on conservation in 2012. It ranks in the top conservation organizations in the World. Read about the zoo's efforts with Khansi Spray Toads, then tell me zoos do not exist for conservation.

 

Nope. Doesn't mean they don't help out, but that's not their sole purpose. I go to zoos to look at animals as do many others. For my enjoyment. Many anti-zoo people would really go after you on that point your making. Just saying. And if their sole purpose is conservation than why have animals that aren't endangered? Hell, why keep animals in captivity at all except for a breeding program for re-introduction. It costs a fortune to maintain/build the exhibits. If SOLE purpose is conservation this makes no sense. I think many people open up zoo's because they like looking at animals and sharing that with other people

 

To inspire people to care and learn about the animals that live no where near them.

 

Did you even read my post? It isn't the sole reason. Not at all. It's a mix of conservation, education, and entertainment and the levels of that mix vary from place to place. And for non-endangered species, I answered that, too! Some are rescues, others are there for the entertaining and financial aspects. Something I did forget to mention is the fact that non-endangered species are crucial to the environment as well! Lions are endangered, Blue Wildebeest are not. The Lions need those common wildebeest to rebuild their populations. Keeping these species shows this in a way and also shows more of what said endangered habitat is like.

And yes, some people open zoos for their and other's enjoyment.

~Thylo

 

This too!

~Thylo

 

Going back several posts, Southwick is ZAA accredited. We could do an entire discussion on the pluses and minuses of AZA vs ZAA (which I will not here, though it might make a good thread on its own).

There are valid points being made all around, which are perhaps getting muddied by excessive claims and personal attacks. Zoos do contribute to conservation, but not nearly enough IMO. AZA accredited zoos, which promote conservation as one of their hallmarks, donate an average of just under three percent of their annual budgets to conservation projects. That is laughable. Can you imagine any charity asking you for a donation and you ask them how much of your donation goes to the actual work versus office expense, and they say oh about three percent to the work and ninety seven percent to office expense, marketing and administration!

ZooLover4Life is correct, zoos are primarily for entertainment. I wish it was not so and I would like to see both AZA and ZAA enforce a minimum ten percent conservation donation from their members, but alas it will not happen.

 

I wasn't responding to you. Did I quote you?

Lions are not endangered of going extinct. Conservationist have a way of overstating things. I prefer lions in a zoo anyway rather than in the wild running amok killing their own young and slaughtering all kinds of other animals. I feel bad for the zebra being eaten alive. Sorry for having a heart. I know you're going to come at me about "balance" and all this other conservation stuff. Heard it all before. No need. I have different values. To me there's nothing nice about the Saranghetti other than sunsets. It's a brutal awful killing field.

 

Yeah that started the moment I made the first post and got my first reply. That's what happens unfortunately on internet forums and this is a very tame forum compared to others.