Indeed not, because all our best footballers are busy playing a much superior code. Some also play rugby league.
I'm fairly shocked to find out how quickly Indianapolis could be viewed. My impression from forum chatter has always been that is a major, all day zoo.
I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed Cincinnati Zoo, with its rich history and modern exhibits. The very small, historic Reptile House (originally the Monkey House) dates from 1875 and the Bird House that you loved was a 1930s-era Reptile House until the conversion at some point in the 1990s. The Elephant House dates from 1906 and there is a splendid history to this famous American zoo. When I visited Cincinnati Zoo in 2008 I was a bit dismayed as the animal collection was magnificent but I felt that the quality of the exhibits was very much hit-and-miss. Flash-forward a decade and 400+ zoos later and I'm sure that I'd have a higher opinion of the facility. There has been a tremendous amount of progress in the last 10 years, including: Hippo Cove, Painted Dog Valley, Cheetah Run, African Lions, various other African exhibits, a renovated Cat Canyon, the refurbished Night Hunters building, Dragons, the indoor viewing at Gorilla World and even the newly expanded Galapagos Tortoise yard and Bald Eagle exhibit. Cincinnati Zoo has been transformed since my visit and I'm due to go back!!!
That makes sense; the reptile displays were in an area where the graphics mentioned the importance of insects as food. However, it certainly wasn’t clear that this was why those reptiles were there – and neither the other visitors, nor I, made the connection. As with any half decent zoo, it would be possible to spend much longer there, but, really, there’s not a great deal to it: the animals-in-water area (a pleasant but not enormous aquarium, the walrus – wonderful – and macaques, and a sea lion exhibit). A dolphin house (so, of course, one could watch the show). The desert dome – which is pretty tiny. The match-discussed orangutan house. “Forests“ which consists of a few fairly exciting displays for tigers, brown bears, Gibbons, red panda, and bald eagles. And the African area, which is very nice, but which, to walk through without stopping to look at anything, would take no more than four minutes. One of the drawbacks of the zoo is that there are very few other exhibits at all: a ring tailed lemur thing, and a small area for birds (including the inevitable lorikeets feeding thing). This isn’t a place where one is going to stumble across something unexpected.
Definitely! Cincinnati it seems like sort of zoo that one should go to – if possible – at least once every five or six years. That’s quite an impressive list of new exhibits built over the last 10 years. Things being the way they are, I’m sure they all cost millions upon millions of dollars, and yet they seem fairly straightforward: the various African exhibits are not in any way revolutionary or complex (even if the filtration system for the hippos must be extensive). The Komodo dragon house looks a little bit temporary, almost, and is nothing fancy in the style of recent developments at, for example, London or Chester (but the presence of several other monitor lizard species was very welcome). The gorilla thing is pretty straightforward, but nicely done – and, again, compared to London (a zoo with which Cincinnati can be usefully compared , I think) it was interesting to see a large family group interacting in the indoor house without any barriers across the glass separating animals from zoo visitors. As a consequence, visitors were able to watch the animals with delight – whereas at London frustration is usually the only emotion one feels when attempting to view the indoor accommodation for gorillas. Bald eagle enclosure not yet finished, but, interestingly, it is essentially an open pit. I presume the animals to be held here will be injured, rather than mutilated in the style of the birds featured in the African exhibit – a major flaw in this zoo.
What did you think of Jungle Trails, Wolf Woods, and Giraffe Ridge? And (out of curiosity) which part of Elephant Reserve was dodgy? The house or the yards? The yards remind me a bit of Woodland Park's *former* elephant facility (now a hastily put together/recycled rhino/crane/tortoise facility) in which a forest environment is emphasized, and that makes it a really nice exhibit in my eyes. The landscaping around the Elephant House is impeccable (as expected from the horticulturist and Ed Maruska's vision). That's just my two cents, I assume you might be looking at size as a factor. Do you think Cincinnati's proposed Elephant Trek would improve on these factors?
On the day of my visit, the elephants were inside (something was being done to the outdoor enclosure). As such, it was hard to get a true sense of the outdoor area – but it certainly looks a little small! The house too is on the small side, but what a beautiful piece of architecture. As a whole, it just doesn’t seem to be one of the prime pieces of the zoo (although I’m sure the elephants have a perfectly good life there).
I thought jungle trails was mostly pretty good (although that lar gibbon enclosure looks a bit sad). The rest of it - nothing revolutionary, but all pretty nicely done. And the sifakas are fantastic, obviously. Wolf woods I thought was great – particularly the grey fox (a real rarity for a European visitor). Nothing was over the top in the presentation, and it was all very tasteful. The giraffe area? Fine. But it seems that raised platform from which to feed giraffes are now all-but-compulsory in zoos.
Day #3 Apologies. The following post may contain some wholly subjective comments about Columbus Zoo. It may also contain some very cliched observations of America, and Americans. Columbus Zoo Hmmmm. Objectively speaking, this is clearly a much better zoo than Cincinnati. It lacks any of the really dodgy parts of its reasonably-near-neighbour, and pretty much all of the animals that are displayed are maintained in a spacious, recently built accommodation. But, whilst I am really pleased to have been, and I thoroughly enjoyed my day there, I can’t say that I especially liked the place, and neither do I think I will be rushing to return in the near future. Good things first. I think the “migratory birds“ aviary is one of the best things I’ve seen in a zoo that isn’t Californian. It’s tremendous! Really very attractive, and with a whole host of inhabitants that I for one have never seen before. I loved it. And it is not the only great thing here: the manatee exhibit is quite wonderful. The polar bear enclosure is exceptional (particularly in contrast to its execrable counterpart in Cincinnati). Much of the North American area is really very good indeed. But overall the place just didn’t do it for me. It was all, ultimately, just a little bit naff. This was summed up by the dreadful piped music that can be heard throughout. Just as I was getting a good look at a bobcat, a saxophone and synthesiser version of Sade’s early-80s hit “Smooth Operator“ came over the speakers. Watching the gibbons, and it was “If You’re Going to San Francisco“. Mind you, the music was preferable to the sounds emanating from the frankly-embarrassing dinosaurs, which were peppered around that area of the zoo. And that overall sense of the carnival was one of the things that, for me, detracted from the place. There was, too, a lack of beauty there. Cincinnati has stunning plants; Columbus does not. In some of the design, it’s all a little bit Colchester. And while the theming is neither the worst nor the most egregious one will see, it is, nonetheless, just a little bit silly. The African area manages to avoid most of the hideous tropes of these places, but can’t resist either a crashed aeroplane or a “crumbling“ wall. The Asian area manages to conjure a sense of place, while – just about – avoiding the Jungle Book approach to it all. But the Australian thing is simply absurd. More seriously, there was a lack of the attention-to-detail that characterised Cincinnati, just as it characterises all of the world’s truly great zoos. It reminded me a little of the Yorkshire Wildlife Park – all quite impressive, all quite well done, but nothing quite as perfect as it might have been if real care had been given to it. All of this bundles up into, as the epitome of it all, the various signs and graphics around the zoo – directional, informational, and marketing. They are an incoherent mess, and, if I were to suggest one improvement for the zoo, it would be to hire a really brilliant branding consultant to try to impose a bit of style upon the zoo. However, to finish on an up-note (as we should!): Fantastic bonobo enclosure. Superbly friendly staff everywhere (if anyone were this friendly to me in England, I would assume They were taking the piss). Black duikers! And an endearingly amateur show, in the Africa section, featuring some rather interesting species (even if not a great deal was done with them): serval, Garnet’s bushbaby, African penguin, African porcupine...
I declined to comment of Columbus previously, considering I never have actually been to the place. However, I will say that at least through photos and videos I have seen, I must nod in agreement with these sentiments. It looks to be a really great, large and overall complete and coherent place (Barring the signage) with some superb animal habitats on display. Yet, when I look at it, for me it feels like somewhat of a theme park almost. There is no real style to the place and everything looks very commercial. Plenty of excellent looking stuff yes, but if some more life was injected into it, it would overall improve the places presentation.
Americans! I hate to go on about it, but visiting America is a 24-hour-a-day reminder of the truth of the comment from Winston Churchill about being two people separated by a common language (or something like that!). It’s not just the language – the whole behaviour of people here is so different to what might be expected in Sussex, or indeed elsewhere in the UK. And, on balance, and with a few obvious caveats, I know which side of the Atlantic I prefer. Yes people may wear extraordinary clothes (I think most Britons would agree that slogan T-shirts should be abandoned once one has left one’s teenage years behind). And the radio stations here are simply dreadful. But the extraordinary cheerfulness, politeness, and friendliness of just about everybody is really rather wonderful. And, on the evidence of three visits so far this trip (and a number in previous years as well), I would also have to conclude that the behaviour of Americans while at the zoo is on a different level to that which one might expect in Europe. Again, I am sure there are exceptions, and I am sure that many will have reason to disagree, but in all three zoos so far this trip, the majority of people present – the vast majority – have been engaged, interested, and respectful. Which is very nice indeed!
Kinda reminds me of this: Peach vs. Coconut Cultures Having been to both, I can understand your opinion regarding Cinci and Columbus. Maybe because the first still has more elements of a "traditional" zoo, while the latter leans more to the "Experience" zoo category (such as Hannover, Gelsenkirchen, Valencia)?
I must go with you on zoo trips in America because I tend to feel the opposite most times. However, I have not been to other countries outside of North America so I cannot compare the different behaviors. Although I do find the staff at most American zoos to be very polite, minus some bored looking teenage staffing. I am glad though that Americans have been on their best behavior to make your trip more pleasant. @snowleopard, what is your take on Americans when you visit? I always found Canadians to be more polite. Going back to your visit to Columbus, I am glad you chose the show in Africa. The other animal show in their theater area (beached theme) is underwhelming to me this year. They have strayed from their normal show in the past and this one is a bit painful for me to watch with the forced acting and dialogue of the trainers.
I enjoy the enthusiasm with which you write about Americans and your rose-coloured view of them. My own (limited) experience, and consequent conclusion, is quite different, I find Americans to be incredibly confusing. Out of all the countries that I have visited, its in America where I feel most foreign and slightly out of my depth. I find people unpredictable to the point that I start to withdraw from social interaction. I found people who look as if they'd rip your head off and spit down your throat to be open, approachable and helpful, where as people who might be labelled as 'respectable looking' often met requests for directions with hostility and, it seemed, fear; perhaps they thought I looked like a mugger as I approached them? Homeless people also throw me. In the UK drug addiction, alcoholism and mental health problems are issues many homeless people struggle with, the homeless people I met in the US seemed to be well-balanced people, cheery people without a care in the world. The other attitude I met in the US that I haven't met elsewhere is a suspicion of tourists. I was asked, more than once, in an accusing manner, if I was a tourist. It seems tourists are considered akin to spies or Reds. The idea that someone might travel for fun rather than business was seen as deeply suspicious.
Stereotypical remarks about Canadians (and perhaps the Swiss!) as being the kindest, best behaved individuals in the world are usually true. Canada is a very liberal nation, up there with New Zealand, Australia,the Netherlands and the Nordic countries in terms of overall "rankings" in terms of liberalism. I do find that in general Americans in zoos are fantastic people, willing to help a friendly neighbour if needed. There are exceptions to every rule, as I've found out in states like Arkansas, but even there I met a wonderful reptile zoo owner (now sadly deceased) who was hilarious, cheerful and incredibly devoted to his cold-blooded friends. Americans are usually quite polite (Trump rallies aside) but no one can reach the status of Canadians, eh!
To be honest, I've never heard anyone consider the Swiss as the "kindest" people. And given the stunts I've seen some Swiss speeders pull on Austrian or German autobahns, "best behaved" might not apply, either. Canadians, on the other hand, have indeed gotten the reputation to be kind to the point of self-abandonment.^^ One of my favourite examples for that involves bears: Bear Whisperer - Scandinavia and the World
These days I wear a t-shirt with ' I'm not going to mug you' on it. It compliments my other slogan t-shirts such as 'No I don't have a nectar card' and 'l'm probably not the best person to ask'. That last one covers a multitude of situations.
Day #4 - Part 1 My apologies. This evening, I have arrived in Cleveland, and as a consequence I cannot get Spinal Tap out of my brain. Hello Cleveland! Rock ‘n’ roll! The Wilds I sort of knew what to expect here. And it was what it was: beautiful countryside – really, really beautiful, including the area around and about (the loveliness of Ohio is a genuine surprise). A slightly frustrating way of seeing animals (from the back of a truck, the driver of which and the fellow passengers on which are more interested in a herd of Pere David’s deer than they are in a goral). And, to be honest, not very many animals to be seen. But it was all very pleasant. My fellow truck passengers were very interested in what they were saying and very enthusiastic about it all. The young woman driving the truck was filled with energy, even if her zooogical commentary was occasionally flawed. And there is something rather splendid about bouncing around on a dusty track and seeing such large groups of ungulates.
