It probably rates most highly for its research programs. I believe it employs the most researchers of any U.S. zoo. The exhibits could use some updating.
For me, the zoo’s I’ve been to have mostly lived up to my expectations. I haven’t been to many compared to others here but I’ve been to some of the bigger ones in the US. Saint Louis Zoo is an amazing facility. But I was underwhelmed by multiple areas. The bird house, Red Rocks, big cats, primate house, and most of the children’s zoo were pretty uninspiring/outdated. I still loved my visit and think the work they do is spectacular and they’ve done a pretty good job of keeping some of those historic buildings functional. Just underwhelming to me.
I think it's still a really good zoo but it's gone downhill a lot over the past decade imo. The new elephant and pinniped exhibits are great, though. ~Thylo
I agree with others that a lot of the exhibits at Smithsonian are lacking, but the collection *is* good and I think it still has a lot going for it. There are a lot of cool species in their Reptile and Small Mammal Houses, as well as a good selection of Asian animals, giant pandas with a massive building and massive yards, a very well-designed if somewhat small Amazon exhibit, huge cheetah yards, bison and Przewalski's horses, and in the near future what I hope will be a very good and innovative New World bird house. I'd also echo what @Karie K said, the research that the Smithsonian Zoo does is unparalleled and they have done a lot as an institution for conservation and ecology (they are funded by FedGov, after all...).
Didn't the zoo go out of wild horses? I agree with you for the most part, though the loss of the fantastic invertebrate house and the exotic bird collection mostly being shipped away are major strikes against it for me. I'm looking forward to the migration exhibit, but have a feeling I may be underwhelmed. ~Thylo
I also have noticed they have been decreasing species at the zoo yes the exhibits are outdated but that being said till money is raised which I'm sure they have should still use the old exhibits the old bear grottoes could still house the smaller bear species in the meantime aka sun bear, asiatic black bear, and andean bear, there is a total of 5 bear grottos. Also there are a couple of exhibits to the side of the bear grottos that could have been used. I always wondered why they haven't added more antelope species make more mixed species with there hoofstock area in the meantime. And it was also a shame they got rid of there Forrest buffalo. Yes may seem old school to keep using the old exhibits but till the funds have been made use them to keep letting visitors see species that you dont normally see. I also wondered why not as well try and give another go at conserving the greater one horned rhino
They no longer have the horses in DC. The bison have an extremely tiny space. They've gotten rid of a lot of their more unique species over the last decade or two, so now there isn't much there that isn't also at other nearby places, and the more unusual ones in the small mammal house constantly seem to have signs saying they're not out for various reasons when I'm there (the tenrecs, for example). Most of the exhibits are outdated - bear and big cat grottos, for example - and others are too small, like the carnivores in the small mammal house and the aforementioned bison. Amazon was likely fantastic when it was first built but is dwarfed by the zoos that have done similar things since then.The newer signage in the cheetah area is great but they're only keeping 2 or 3 of them at the zoo now, so it can be hard to spot them at all. Many of the fancy signs on the Asian Trail are very faded now, tvs don't work, etc. Of course they do fantastic research, but as a *zoo*, not so much.
Personally I disagree with you on the big cat and bear enclosures. The former in particular I always found to be unique. ~Thylo
I know I just talked the zoo up in my last post, but now I have to switch gears and ask... what do you find to be unique about the big cat enclosures? The zoo has cheetahs, tigers, lions, and clouded leopards and I can't think of how any of those exhibits are very different from others I've seen for the same species. As for bears, the Andean bears are just in standard grassy grottoes... not bad, but certainly room for improvement. The sloth bear exhibits, on the other hand, are large with varied terrain, good viewing, and plenty of rock/foliage cover... very well-designed.
I was referring specifically to the Panthera enclosures. I like the step design to them. Maybe not unique solely to the zoo, but not one that's seem too often. ~Thylo
In response to the London Zoo comments: I actually really like London Zoo, it has a fascinating and extensive history; and when I visited, I thoroughly enjoyed viewing the architectural highlights (including the many heritage listed exhibits) like the Snowdon Aviary, the Casson Pavillion, and Mappin Terraces and the Lubetkin Penguin Pool. I won't deny that few of the heritage listed exhibits are still suitable today for their original purpose (i.e. housing elephants); but I enjoy nothing more than seeing architectural wonders re purposed for modern day use where possible. I'm apparently in the minority here; but for me, London Zoo was underrated in my opinion!
The listed architecture is great to see and I do enjoy seeing the older structures at Bronx, however it's worth noting that these structures are a major cause of the zoo's decline. A growing number of buildings and sections of the zoo sit empty simply because the zoo isn't allowed to do anything with them. The sole reason the aquarium is closing is because it's a listed building so the zoo can't renovate it to make it structurally safe. ~Thylo
That's true. Many staff I spoke to while there were critical of the many exhibits that couldn't be altered for use (i.e. the Lubetkin Penguin Pool) due to the restrictions from them being heritage listed. While I enjoyed the architecture; I could understand their frustration. In my opinion, Auckland Zoo has done one of the best jobs in remodeling what would probabaly be heritage listed if in England. They have part of a giraffe house as a walk through to the South American precinct; an elephant house as a restaurant/function centre; bear pits as red panda exhibits and otter exhibits; polar bear dens as storage areas; and a lion pit as a tiger exhibit (extensively renovated). Some of these structures/exhibits have been at the zoo since it opened in 1922.
Re: London Zoo: is it possible for them to move any of the structures off the zoo's grounds? I know it's an unusual and laborious process, but I've heard of buildings that have been transported to another site intact, or otherwise disassembled and then reassembled, in order to have them on display in a different location. Maybe that's too much for some of the buildings, but maybe they could do it with smaller structures like the Lubetkin Pool?
I have to agree with you about Plzen - apart from the amazing species on display, I was most disappointed with the general layout and lack of organisation of the displays. However I wish you hadn't said that about Pairi Daiza because it's top of my list for my next European trip...maybe I should reconsider?
On a slight tangent, could anyone tell me why Chester is so successful both in terms of exhibits, variety of species and conservation programmes? I lived in the UK for quite some time and although I visited a number of collections, it's the only one that really stands out in my mind...so what's the secret of their success? Or does anyone disagree with my opinion?
I’d say their TV show has helped (albeit indirectly): TV show = awareness and publicity = increased visitation = increased income through attendance and sponsorship = decent, world class exhibits that are readily updated to meet the needs of the animals.
More precisely, they could renovate it, but would need to do so in a manner that was sympathetic to the structure. Such planning regulation is a good thing, in my opinion, preserving our national heritage in the face of short termism. That said, of course it adds several extra layers of complexity and cost to any development of the Mappins and the aquarium. However, I am not sure that the zoo has ever submitted any sort of proposal to significantly develop this area anyway. As for the complaints about, for example, the Tecton Penguin Pool being unsuitable for animals: I would have sympathy with this view if the rest of the zoo saw animals packed into every space. As it is, those 36 acres are not currently short of space in which development could be undertaken. The LPP footprint is really pretty small compared to all the lawns, the empty exhibits (or near empty), the areas of abandonment....
I don't disagree at all about the history. I do find the background of such an old zoo fascinating. But when you find yourself talking about the history rather than the current day for this zoo and the previous animal collection rather than the current one that you realise that the zoo has definitely decreased tremendously in content and quality over the past century. So yes, history fascinating, current exhibits not so fascinating. Basically, I do agree with you, but I think that they need to do what Tiergarten Schoenbrunn has done and done effectively ; transforming their old exhibits (eg Hippo house, Giraffe house, and elephant house) into newer housing areas (eg Mouse House, larger Giraffe house, Donkey barn, respectively).
