Your review is interesting. I like Jihlava very much, and it is true that this zo reflects the typical Czech zoo culture, which it does not necessarily mean that it is bad. Anyway, do you really put Jihlava behind Ostrava? In my opinion, Jihlava is way better than Ostrava, but it is just my opinion, of course.
Yes, for me Ostrava is clearly better than Jihlava, I found several of the new developments in Ostrava very impressive such as the new Chimp and Diana guenon house as well as the Bear enclosure or the E Asian bird aviaries. Jihlava really has nothing of that scale. Ostrava off course also still has some dodgy enclosures, with the cats faring worst, but none of these enclosures are worse than in Jihlava, with many even being more spacious (Lynx excepted). The primate house in Ostrava is in parts impressively ugly, but conditions in Jihlava are not a lot better for many primates.
For what it's worth, I'd rate the Czech zoos I've visited as Prague, Ostrava, Jihlava, and the Plzen. I don't think any zoo is bad, though I do think all have areas they could improve upon with Plzen in particular being the one with the most work to do and Prague probably not having all too much to worry about. As for Jihlava, from memory I found the cat house to be crowded and a couple other enclosures in the Australia house to be on the small side but aside from that there aren't too many issues that come to mind when I reflect on my visit. I found most of the outdoor enclosures for the carnivores to be quite nice personally. Of course, the zoo has seen a lot of acquisitions since my visit, particularly of mammals, so I can potentially see how the zoo might feel crowded now. To be honest, whenever I've heard of a new species arriving at the zoo, I'm happy to hear of another holder and to see the collection expand into so many juicy rarities, but I have always thought to myself "where do they put them all?" ~Thylo
In my opinion Jihlava is much better than Ostrava. Jihlava has certain thematic areas, Ostrava does not have much. Ostrava is obsolete and the new exhibitions are, in my opinion, too modern and spectacular. Jihlava looks unobtrusive and more natural. You can't want a small city zoo to have large paddocks, it can only afford enough.
I'm not really sure what you mean by Jihlava having thematic areas and Ostrava not. They have an African rainforest house, African savanna, general African house, and Indian forest, Asian cat house, East Asian aviary, lemur islands, and Asian house (elephant house). Jihlava has the African savanna/house, monkey house, general cat house, generic tropics building, and Australia house that houses a lot of non-Australian species. Ostrava actually has more thematic areas that follow their stricter themes more closely. I'm not really sure what you mean by Ostrava being "obsolete" because it's "too modern", that seems kind of contradictory to me. ~Thylo
It's somehow irking that I have a biased view on two of the most discussed Czech zoos here, at the same time it's often the reason discussion exists. But anyway, here is my (slightly biased) view: My rating of the Czech zoos would be: 1. Zlin 2. Plzen/Jihlava 3. Ostrava Plzen and Jihlava edge Ostrava only for personal reasons, being more realistic Ostrava would probably get the second place. There is no point in including Prague as it's in a league of its own... Now to some points about Jihlava mentioned by @lintworm with whom I spent great day and others I feel those are pretty decent as they are, if they make them higher with more climbing options, they will be perfect. If there is a zoo other than Plzen to suffer from this, it has to be Jihlava, the connection between those two zoos is probably the biggest in Czechia There is always the off-show area Then maybe should small city zoo adjust its plans accordingly to amount of resources it can work with. Also the three biggest exhibits in zoo (Zebras, Giraffes, Tapirs) are all alright and good enough for the animals living there. Each has certain flaws but it's more case of working conditions for keepers, rather than animal welfare.
I found them pretty bad to be honest. I would estimate them at about max. 10 square meter per cage with zero furnishing. As a reference the German government gives a minimum outdoor enclosure of 20 square meters per animal with a height of 2.5 meter. I am not saying all German zoos get to that standard but that is a whole different league. I know the cats are physically healthy and well-cared for but that is not enough in a modern zoo....
I would say that he means that whole zoo in Jihlava is arranged acording to geographic key, there are whole sections of it (not unlikely to Pilsen or Zlin) while in Ostrava there are just independent expositions, which you mention (and this is normal I guess and today zoos are more likely to build various "Madagascar" and "Amazon" pavilons or "african savannah" or "australian bush" paddoks than monkey or reptile houses). Also, which cat enclosures do you mean? These near the bears and Tropical house(s) seems totally ok for me (ok, Homins right about climbing). "Old" cat house... well, they are not absolutely terrible, but... Jihlava is nice zoo... and felines were traditionally some sort of its "speciality" so you would expect something way better. I hope that there are some plans for tigers, leopards and smaller ones there...
I like to Jihlava that they have made the most of their small space they have. Interestingly, however, it is not exaggeratedly at all. Cat House is probably really the only weak point of the zoo, but certainly not so bad and fits into the zoo quite (does not protrude from it as some obsolete building). Ostrava has more thematic pavilions or paddocks than thematic sections of the zoo. Jihlava is completely divided into parts, Ostrava does not. I do not like Ostrava that the central part of the zoo is facing backwards, while in the front part there are only a few aviaries, deer, and a REFRESHMENT AND PLAYGROUNDS. Quite horrible is the pavilion of monkeys or the pavilion of Indian animals (lions, leopards ...). Also, the interior space for giraffes I do not like at all. On the contrary, the bear enclosure is very nice. Their few new buildings are unnecessarily overly modern. The entrance building and the Pavilion of Evolution look strangely. Inside, however, the Pavilion of Evolution is very nice. In my opinion, they invest too much money in new exposures, which are then exaggerated, leaving the old exposures to be. In my opinion, the best of the Czech zoos is Prague, but it cannot compare to others because it has much more money. Here is my list of Czech zoos from best to worst (outside Prague): 1. Zlín 2. Jihlava / Pilsen 3. Dvur Kralove 4. Usti / Ostrava 5. Brno 6. Liberec / Olomouc 7. Hodonin German zoos are on a completely different level and therefore do not compare too much with Czech zoos. Probably the best zoo is Pairi Daiza.
Have you ever been in Brno? Ok, I wasn´t there for years but my impression is that this is much more true for it than for Ostrava. Not sure about giraffe house, surely isn´t fancy, but for animals in it is ok? Monkey house really isn´t good, but there are less and less species in it (and eventually will be demolished?). Cat house, as I remember really isn´t good, but not sure if worse than Jihlava one... Refreshment playgrounds- I hear some complains about it, on the other hand I remember former Jihlava director complain that in "his" zoo are these things at the end of the zoo and not at the entrance (something about kids who get tired and in rest of zoo behave much better then )
I was in Brno and recently very good projects were created. For example, the new chimpanzee aviary that is under construction now looks very good. I really wish the monkey house was demolished. However, the adjacent enclosure for mandrils has recently undergone a small refurbishment so ...? The cat house inside is not worse than in Jihlava, but the outdoor areas is worse. I don't like the giraffe house. However, the outdoor areas are quite good. In Ostrava, it bothers me that at the beginning of the zoo there is almost only a refreshment and most of the exhibits are built at the very back. Also tigers are supposed to be near camels (they have been saying this for many years and still nothing). In the front part of the zoo will remain only deer, pets, lions and leopards and red pandas.
It hardly seems fair to criticise a zoo for building enclosures which are too modern. If they do this for ten years they will be in a very good position indeed.
Yes, but they should also look at old paddocks. Personally, I would like more natural exhibits, which would also cost much less money. Of course I do not want to throw away Ostrava Zoo, because it also has very nice parts. I just think her style of development should be a little different.
The hillside enclosures, it seems I am in a minority to find them far too small. The small cat enclosures in the cat are even worse and would not even reach 10 square meters.
Well, I think we can both agree that it's ok for you to not like Ostrava on a subjective level Personally I am always reminded of a conversation about Zurich, which built Masoala and the spectacled bear exhibit when the rest of the zoo was perhaps unimpressive. Yes, the zoo looked bizarre and unbalanced for a decade or more, but today it is one of the finest in the world. The Cat House small cat exhibits are really awful (and the larger ones not fantastic either). Perhaps the hillside enclosures are also not good, but look better in comparison. I do not think they are awful though and would rather that Jihlava focuses first on the Cat House, and second on solving the problems in the Australian House. I need to review my own thoughts about Jihlava more generally, since I loved it but even then acknowledged your criticisms.
You're right. Maybe if the old expositions are canceled in a few years, the new ones (which I find too modern for now) may fit in more with the other zoo and stop bothering me. So far, Ostrava has no plans to do so. The monkey house (mandrill enclosure) was somewhat repaired and the Indian Animal Pavilion necessarily needs new enclosures (but instead they repaired old cages). I don't criticize the Evolution pavilion completely, it's great inside, but looks strange from the outside. Ostrava is not a bad zoo, but in my opinion it has several major shortcomings. I rate it as average.
That they do not have money on a short term to fix all problems, does not mean that small investments that improve current conditions rule out long term development. On their website I see projects planned for new enclosures for Gibbons and Lion-tailed macaque, which currently live in the old monkey house, so your statement seems false. Additionally a new Tiger enclosure is planned. I cannot imagine that in the long run both houses will disappear. The example of Zurich shows that it can take 30+ years to transform a mediocre zoo to a world class one and to me Ostrava is moving into a similar direction: building enclosures that will last a long time.
Yes, their projects look very good. However, why have they reconstructed the mandrill exhibit when most monkeys leave the old pavilion? Maybe they would pull it down and build a mandrill house instead. It would be great. If that were to happen (and if the Indian Animal Pavilion were even rebuilt), I would rethink Ostrava. It would still not be better than Zlin or Dvur Kralove.
Probably to give the remaining animals in the house more space, e.g. there are still a lot of Lemurs, Diana monkeys and the Mandrills in the house. If they have long term plans with the species, it makes no sense to tear down a building (which also costs money) long before new enclosures are built. Once the Gibbons and Macaques move out, the old building should have plenty of space to provide the remaining inhabitants with acceptable enclosures....
