I used to hate robosaur displays, but then I realized that they bring in a lot of much needed income for the zoos that they can then put towards actual animal exhibits. Tbh I'd rather a zoo do an educational dinosaur exhibit than something like a playground, zipline, or minigolf course. ~Thylo
I understand it can be good income, but I don't like it personally. I agree animatronic dinosaurs are better than a zipline or a minigolf course, but I think 'nature based' playgrounds are a good addition.
I remember seeing those in the Tropics Trail 29 years ago. I thought they were hokey in a zoo even then. That was also my only time getting in trouble with someone at a zoo. Some old fart working there said I was too rough with the controls on an animatronic dinosaur guests could control. Oops!
The zoo will release 400 Dakota Skippers into the wild: Minnesota Zoo to release 400 endangered Dakota skipper butterflies – Twin Cities
Obviously the Dakota Gingers are much more photogenic, and we're leaving it at that! The Dakota Howells can stay, though. never really liked them.
A male Canada lynx kitten was born May 12, 2019, and has just gone on public display with his mother (as of early August). (source: Felid TAG Facebook page August 8, 2019)
The zoo is expanding its conservation efforts for mussels. Minnesota Zoo expanding mussel conservation efforts
Aside from the Llama Trek that opened earlier this year, none really. I think the Zoo is in a period of maintaining itself before embarking on an expansion.
Yeah, and thats only a seasonal exhibit that just took over the Kangaroo Walkabout area, I believe. There is an old master plan from around 2012, that included updating the Tropics Trail, Japanese Macaque exhibit, and adding a large, new Africa area, which looked fantasic. However, I think that was thrown out the window pretty much as soon as Lee Emhke left for Houston. At least thats the way it looks.
I read somewhere that they were completing a new master plan this year, but nothing has been made public. There have only been snippets of plans, and nothing announced in the way of major new animal exhibit zones. As others have stated the current focus seems to be on catching up on deferred maintenance, along with incorporating interaction with nature. Here are current and upcoming development plans I'm aware of: -the Tropics aviaries (home to most of the bird collection) are currently being renovated. New mesh, new holding, new landscaping and hardscape (including a new breeding tree for the hornbills) -the Minnesota Trail aviary is being turned into a rotational exhibit for program/bird show animals. When I visited the zoo last month it had porcupine and American robin -it seems like the temporary interactive llama exhibit will come back next year, with animatronic dinosaurs presumably coming in the near future as well -the zoo's current state budget request asks for funding for three different updates of closed spaces. First priority seems to be turning the monorail track into an elevated walkway. This has already received a $5 million private funding pledge. -second priority is to renovate and reopen the nocturnal hall in the Tropics Trail. Before most of this closed it held (in order) slow loris, clouded leopard, small reptiles/frogs, Burmese python, Indian flying fox, water monitor, more small reptiles, cloud rat, pygmy loris, and fishing cat. Currently it only has sloth + chinchilla in the former cloud rat/pygmy loris exhibits and the python now in the former fishing cat exhibit. The original renovation plan for this space was to turn it into a focused reptile hall. It doesn't seem like that is still the case. A year or two ago a concept was published that showed enlarged sloth and python exhibits plus leafcutter ants but didn't depict any other species. Seems like plans might still be up in the air. -third priority is to turn the IMAX theater into an indoor climbing area, with an adjacent outdoor adventure course. -other plans that have been mentioned publicly are updates of the moose and bison exhibits, putting in a lodge for overnight stays, and developing a shuttle/tram route. I think news of more interesting exhibit concepts will have to wait until the updated master plan is publicized.
I have not seen anything about a new master plan, so thank you @Gondwana for this information. I've searched for something on multiple occasions because I'm desperately hoping that my home zoo isn't becoming stagnant. The new zoo director that replaced Ehmke seems to have put the focus on maintaining what they have, which isn't a bad thing. That being said, I don't believe zoochat truly understands the lay of the land here in MN with the Minnesota Zoo and Como Zoo. The public here supports Como it seems to a much greater extent than Minnesota has ever been supported. Part of this just comes down to history, but a lot of this I think is due to the MN Zoo being a budget item for the state where Como isn't (at least to the same extent). A lot more people have an opinion on it because the entire state's taxes go towards it instead of the city or county that it is in. The other part that goes into this, is something I hear pretty regularly, that "Como Zoo is better than MN anyways." Largely, this seems to be due to two reasons. First, compared to MN, Como has far more megafauna/ABC zoo animals than MN does. Como has lions, tigers, polar bears, gorillas, orangutans, snow leopards, seals/sea lions, penguins, giraffes, etc. For MN, they have far more species, but not nearly the number of the animals people come to the zoo to see. This has been felt even more by the dolphins leaving. The zoo told the legislature when they were seeking money for updates to the tank that the dolpins would be coming back, which obviously didn't happen. As great as the Monk seals are, they are old and really fairly boring animals to watch, which is compunded by the fact they have a terrible exhibit for seals. The public just doesn't appreciate that this is the only place you can see them outside of Hawaii. Como is also on a much smaller site so a lot less walking to see, at least in the publics view "better animals." As much as us zoo nerds love the unglate paddocks in Northern Trail, for the general public, this is often viewed as a lot of walking for not much reward. I had students tell me "the animals are so far apart" when we went on a field trip to MN last May. The other part of it is Como has all these animals and it is free, where as MNs fees keep going up. I'm not sure what the best option is for MN personally. I thought a major new exhibit, such as Africa was a great idea as not having one was often the biggest complaint any zoochatter could lodge against the place. That being said others hated the idea because of the MN weather. I think it was a great idea as it would get a lot more ABC animals into the zoo that the public wants to see, without getting rid of what is already there. My biggest complaint about the master plan was, that in my opinion, I think the MN Zoo and Como compliment each other pretty well. Yes, they carry a few of the same animals, but overall there isn't a ton of overlap. The new master plan would have changed this. For example, the previous master plan called for orangutans at the zoo, a species Como has had quite a bit of success with, because of this I would have preferred Chimpanzees or Bonobos, the great ape species Como doesn't have.
Maybe a focused exhibit based off of extinct animals and their wild cousins? (Kind of like Elephant Odyssey except far more realistic), with Przewalski's horses, Chacoan peccaries, Baird's tapir, capybara, Andean bear (standing in for short faced bears), jaguars (standing in for sabre-tooth tigers), lions, and Asian elephants? Como'd have everything else (Great apes, giraffes, African hoofstock, the rest of the big cats (aside from tigers and leopards), polar bears, sea lions, etc.) while Minnesota would have mostly cold-climate species but also the big ticket animals (literally) in terms of Asian elephants. (Of course, extensive holding facilities would be in place kind of like Oregon's Forest Hall, but A: this would be feasible with enough public support, B: Minnesota has the land, C: Randers Regnskov suggested a Pleistocene rewilding project complete with releasing Asian elephants on a tract of land). It's a big dream, but it's easy to fund a big dream once you tap into a public's wants. (Maybe a tram system around the zoo fueled with biomass kinda like SDZSP to take care of the problem of too much walking...?) If the exhibit had the same amount of detail and museum-like quality as Russia's Grizzly Coast, with caves (complete with replica paintings) looking out at large vistas with mixed species opportunities, this'd probably be a real winner! IDK though, thoughts?
As a former local, this analysis echoes my observations as well, with the other key point being that Como is right in town while Minnesota is about a half hour south of either Minneapolis or St. Paul. I also agree that it would be great if Minnesota and Como could continue to maintain largely complementary collections. I have softened my stance a bit on that over time though just because it seems to me that the two zoos draw different core audiences anyway, and from a space perspective some of the larger species are better suited to Minnesota. When there's the option though, I'm glad the two zoos have mostly chosen to exhibit different species. I like the idea of this kind of exhibit, as a better version of Elephant Odyssey, but I can't see Minnesota ever investing in elephants unfortunately, since they are seen as "controversial" and the zoo already went out of exhibiting another "controversial" species (dolphins) that had perfectly good housing. As for the other species, if an EO-type exhibit were done it would make most sense to choose focal species that are at least somewhat cold-hardy and have a connection to species that occurred in Minnesota during the Pleistocene. The obvious candidate would be musk ox, which are already on site but not really part of a broader exhibit complex. The horses and lions you mentioned are other good options. I think spectacled bear, Baird's tapir, Chacoan peccary, jaguar, and capybara would not work as well in this sort of exhibit because they would need separate winter housing/exhibits, they aren't related to species that made it as far north as Minnesota in the Pleistocene, and in most cases similar species are already exhibited at the zoo (black bear, Malayan tapir, wild boar, leopard). Going forward, the Minnesota Zoo's collection gaps are pretty clear. They are lacking in megafauna (no great apes, no megaherbivores, and now no dolphins) and also in "viviarium" species (smaller herps and insects). Otherwise the collection is ranges from adequate (other primates, birds, small mammals) to solid (carnivores, general hoofstock) to excellent (fish). The zoo is of course aware of this, and all the previous master plans have touched on these groups but were unrealistic in their ambitions. Hopefully the current master plan will carry some of these ideas forward in a sustainable budget-conscious way. If I were setting priorities, one easy fix is to focus on incorporating herps/insects in the planned Tropics nocturnal renovation, and maybe add a few vivaria to the empty Tropics entry hallway as well. A second easy fix would be to add additional pinniped species to the Discovery Bay tanks to increase activity and interest. They have four marine mammal pools here, three of which are between 200,000 and 500,000 gallons, so there's plenty of room for versatility while still providing good care to the monk seals. I'd love to see them bring in a rescue Northern elephant seal for a wow factor, and some rescue California sea lions to provide consistent activity. Adding megaherbivores and a great ape is going to be at least somewhat costly no matter what. Working on a realistic budget, the most likely outcome would probably be a less ambitious version of some of the ideas from the 2012 master plan. For megaherbivores, turn the multi-acre musk ox exhibit into a mixed savanna with giraffe and rhino plus some at least somewhat cold-hardy support species (for example mountain zebra, springbok, ostrich). The main cost here would be construction of a climate-controlled giraffe/rhino barn, preferably with public viewing. The support species could likely be maintained in the existing musk ox barn if radiant heat was provided. For great apes, I'd love to see chimps as a complement to Como's gorillas and orangutans but chimps would be an expensive exhibit with major indoor and outdoor space needs and lots of space flexibility needed to account for their large troop sizes and fission-fusion social structure. An older Minnesota Zoo concept was to modify the Tropics goat canyon (currently home to red panda and urial) to exhibit orangutan, which of course have smaller social groups than chimps and would better utilize the vertical space of the canyon. The canyon exhibit is too small to be a permanent home for any great ape now (not to mention the implication of an all-indoors ape exhibit), but if well equipped would probably be at least average winter holding. For other seasons, a large outdoor netted exhibit could be built just outside, where the 2012 master plan suggested placing an orangutan complex. Costs here would be to enclose, strengthen, add climbing structures, and add viewing to the indoor canyon exhibit and to build an outdoor netted enclosure.
According to the zoos website their are currently 3 left. Paki, Koa, and Ola are the three that remain and if memory serves me correctly they are all in their 40s, but I could be wrong on their age.
