I would say loss of confidence in continuity as there has been a swathe of directors coming and going way too much. Also, it seems the City has no lucky hand in actually appointing someone with a sound previous zoo management experience.
The zoo's oldest alligator, Goliath, died. Oldest captive alligator in the world dies at Honolulu Zoo - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL
Four Japanese giant salamanders arrived. They're going to be the main feature of a new reptile/amphibian complex opening soon. Japanese salamanders to be featured at Honolulu Zoo exhibit | KHON2
Accreditation has been denied due to funding concerns. Honolulu Zoo denied re-accreditation over funding concerns | KHON2
A Sumatran Tiger, believed to be the world's oldest (of any subspecies) has died at the age of 25. Story here: World's oldest Sumatran tiger in captivity Djelita euthanised at the Honolulu Zoo - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The facility was known as the Kapiolani Park Zoo from 1915-1935 and then as the Waikiki Bird Park from 1935-1947. The establishment became the Honolulu Zoo in 1947 and here is a list of the zoo's directors since then: Paul Breese = 18 years (1947-1965) Jack Throp = 14 years (1965-1979) Jerome Marr = 10 years (1979-1989) Don Davis = 3 years (1990-1993 - on extended medical leave for 2 of those years) Ken Redman = 15 years (1993-2008) That makes 5 directors in 61 years...and then the madness began. Tommy Higashino = 1 year (2008-2009 - acting director) Stephen Walker = 14 months (2009-2010) Manuel Mollinedo - 3 years (2010-2013) Jeffrey Mahon = 6 months (2013-2014) Jeffrey Wilkinson = 9 months (2014-2015) Baird Fleming = 1 year and counting (2015-present) Honolulu Zoo has been denied AZA accreditation on several temporary occasions: 1985 - denied accreditation (then became accredited in 1986) 2006 - accreditation was put on hold (granted accreditation in 2007) 2011 - accreditation was put on hold (granted accreditation in 2012) 2016 - denied accreditation
The above is nothing but a propaganda hit piece, quoting mostly anti-zoo fanatics such a PETA. Pay Zero attention to this article. The Honolulu Zoo is a good zoo with a few great exhbits, but also a zoo with a few challenges. I really like this zoo.
90% of the zoo's issues have to do with funding. Essentially, the city (that the zoo operates under), is not giving them enough funding to operate fully. Yes, they managing with what they've got right now, however they are just managing to squeak by, any more and they would be in the red. They also seem to have issues with retaining directors over the past several years as well.
I am surprised it is even now not clear to City Council: lack of funding ... and the impossible relationship between Zoo Society and City, where the City is not unwilling or unable to put its money where its mouth is.
Honolulu Zoo has needed a new Reptile House for many years and the old one closed down for good in August 2014. Construction bids went out in spring 2015 for companies interested in building a new structure and Japanese giant salamanders were announced as the "headline creatures" in late 2015. It is now 2017 and has there been an updated timeline of when the new Reptile House will finally open to the public? It has been almost a full year since Honolulu lost its AZA-accreditation (the third time the zoo has been "put on hold" since 2006) and so would that mean any new buildings are in limbo? Everyone I know that has visited the facility has told me that the zoo is definitely well-worth touring...and yet attendance has stagnated for a decade, there is a new director every year, and the place is not even accredited. The state of Hawaii receives a record-breaking number of tourists each year (around 10 million) but only 600,000 people visit the zoo...the same total that visited the zoo in 1949 when tourism was just an idea! What can the zoo do to win back public acceptance? In terms of visitors and finances the Honolulu Zoo is a colossal disappointment but judging from its animal collection and quality of exhibits it seems to actually be quite good.
From my understanding the exhibit quality is mixed. The African Savanna seems to be quite good, on par with Masai Mara at Zoo Atlanta. However, the new elephant exhibit appears to be easily the worst new elephant exhibit in the last decade (besides Louisville's joke of a renovation) and the orangutan exhibit looks ridiculous. The tiger and hippo exhibits don't seem to be much to write home about either.
I was just at the Honolulu Zoo last week. The elephant exhibit is actually very good. It is large and has large pools and enrichment areas. What are you basing your assessment on? The orangutan exhibit does look rather strange in photos as it is basically a fenced in grassy area, but seeing it in person it is fine. It has a huge tree for them to climb in, which is absent from most orangutan exhibits, as well as traditional climbing structures. The savanna exhibit is overall very good. The hippo exhibit is being renovated and the former crocodile exhibit is now an African penguin exhibit. The chimp exhibit is excellent. The bongo exhibit was lush and large. The cheetah and lion exhibits are good. The whole complex holds up remarkably well for being 25 years old. In terms of species diversity and exhibit quality it compares well with Kansas City Zoo's massive African complex (although not as large and lacking elephants and gorillas). The tiger exhibit wasn't aesthetically great - it's basically a set of large cages, but it is well landscaped.
I've seen pictures and videos as well as read about it. I hate the lack of grass and all the sand- it looks even drier than Elephant Odyssey. It also is only like an acre in size, which doesn't compare well to the multi-acre modern elephant exhibits. From what I've seen the chimp exhibit is good but no Dallas or North Carolina. I know I have a bit of a rep around here for being quite picky in terms of naturalism and immersion in exhibits but that doesn't mean I think the exhibits I pan are horrible for their inhabitants. I just believe exhibits should try to emulate the habitats of the animals as much as possible.
The elephant exhibit is well over an acre is size, it is very large as David says. And elephants have a habit of destroying vegetation in their exhibits which is why most zoos keep them on concrete or dirt. It's certainly better than the previous exhibit in this photo: The orang exhibit is built around an enormous tree - something I've not seen in a zoo before for orangs. It's a 25 year old exhibit. If it's 'good', what's the problem? Honolulu is a good zoo. Like all zoos it has some areas that still need upgrading, but overall it's a good zoo. I'm disappointed to hear it has lost it's accreditation, and that visitation in down, because it's a nicely laid out, well planted zoo with wide open spaces and lots of endangered species. Hix
As is often stated on this website, it is best to judge based on an actual visit, rather than through reading or viewing images/videos. Images can often be misleading, not showing the full area accessible to animals. Small details are best observed in person. Like @Hix said, if an exhibit is good, what's the problem? It's clearly mentioned elsewhere on this thread that this zoo has budget issues, and I think they've done great with available funding and space. I visited and enjoyed it a lot, and while details have faded because I was younger, looking through the gallery has been a great refresher. Back to the main point- an exhibit doesn't have to "emulate the habitats of the animals as much as possible" to be a successful exhibit. I'm not saying we should revert to concrete pits, but it simply is not feasible for this to happen in each and every exhibit, for several reasons. In this case, I'd say it's primarily budget and available space. The zoo has done great so far; and I hope they resolve the accreditation issue and continue to do so in the future.
