Most overrated zoo

I have visited all the rest.
I really liked Gondwanaland, and, yes, ok, Masoala Rainforest hall is good too, but...

 

I agree with you on the pygmy hippo enclosures being too small. And sadly plans to improve the enclosures have been repeatedly shelved. I'm less in agreement with you on the warthog and babirusa enclosures. They are indeed small but they house only single elderly specimens of each specie. Both species should be phased out of the zoo's collection in due course, with the babirusa featuring in what looks on plan to be a more enlightened exhibit at the new Rainforest Park instead. I would actually single out the giraffe exhibit as being the worst, it is far too small.

 

They've already started to update the zoo plus they have new behind the scenes available.

 

Yeah, this is my position as well. I visited (at the time) SDWAP and SDZ within days of each other. I found both to be great zoos and world class, but I easily found the Animal Park to be the more solid establishment of the two. Yeah, the Zoo may have a more diverse collection in terms of birds and reptiles and medium-sized mammals, and it has plenty of solid habitats, but I found the quality of the Animal Park to be greater with its large field habitats for large mammals and birds, which were often behaving in ways you wouldn't see in the smaller paddocks in the Zoo, and I found the collection and habitats for some of the smaller species in the village enjoyable as well. Overall, as an experience it was much more memorable. And I say that as someone who is more into birds and reptiles than into mammals.

 

Eh, I disagree. While the Safari Park is an excellent zoo, among my top 5 favorites, it isn't in the same league as the San Diego Zoo in my opinion. The one area that the Safari Park is clearly better than the Zoo is for large mammals (then again, the Safari Park is one of the best in the world in this regard), but in every other area the zoo is clearly superior both in collection and exhibitry. The Safari Park has a small, but interesting bird collection in mostly good habitats, but it isn't even on the same level as the zoo, ditto for smaller mammals, and it's almost non-existent reptile collection pales in comparison to the zoo, which is arguably the best in the world for Reptiles and Amphibians. If I could re-visit one of these two zoos today I'd pick the San Diego zoo in a heartbeat, the Safari Park is great but the Zoo is just better. Just my two cents.

 

1) I'd argue that the safari park is better for carnivores, too.
2) What small mammals does the zoo really have? I remember very, very few.
3) SDZ has no where near the largest collection of herps in the world, or even the US... Their outdoor habitats are some of the best around for sure, but their indoor habitats often left a little to be desired, especially in the smaller wooden houses.

~Thylo

 

Fair enough, the Safari Park has great Cheetah, Lion and Tiger exhibits.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on this, when I say small mammals I mean all mammals that are of a small stature. So small monkeys, Koalas, Tassie Devils, Meerkats, Klipspringers, the Otters in the children's zoo, Duikers, etc. There are probably more but those are just some of the top of my head.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I'm almost 100% certain that San Diego has around 200 species of reptiles, and while that might not be the most in the world it's still a tremendous amount, and combining the collection with some great exhibits makes it at least in the discussion for best Herptile Zoo. In regards to the reptile house, I found that the exhibits were generally decent to good, it's not amazing, but it's an interesting collection in decent exhibits.

 

Fair enough, if you include all other mammals then yeah SDZ is probably better than SDZSP since the latter is a bit more specialized mammal-wise.

The 2018 IZY had SDZ at exactly 190 herp species, roughly the same number as Houston. Five other zoos in the US kept larger collections of herps that year. I'd imagine Europeans zoos like Wroclaw and Plzen could compete as well. I definitely won't try to argue that that isn't still a fantastic collection, though.

Another note in terms of birds, SDZSP has a larger endangered bird breeding center bts. The zoo still has the better collection by far, but I think the compound is still noteworthy.

~Thylo

 

A lot of the animals at London are hard to see most of the time and it's overly busy

 

If only this were true - the visitor numbers at the zoo are relatively low, especially when compared to the figures in the 1950s (when three times as many visited). I think the problem is that there's just not enough to soak up visitors, so even though there aren't that many people there, they're all in pretty much the same areas.....

 

I see where you are coming from, but in my opinion the Safari Park is undoubtedly the better of the two. If I were to re-visit one of them, it would be the Safari Park a million times over.

First, I believe in assessing zoos and aquariums based on what they are trying to be and not on what they are not trying to be. The Safari Park is not trying to beat the zoo in terms of its collections of reptiles, amphibians, birds, and small/medium-sized mammals. However, I absolutely think the Safari Park is better at its strengths than the Zoo is.

I also am a quality-over-quality person, and I would rather see a smaller amount of species in fantastic habitats over more species packed in a smaller amount of space. And in my opinion, the habitats at SDWAP for its less speciose but larger body-sized collection are more impressive and enjoyable and memorable than the Zoo's habitats. I'd rather see the large field habitats for many species over the large animal habitats at the zoo. I'd rather see the Wild Animal Park's tiger habitat over the (recently split, from what I have heard) Tiger River, and ditto to the SDSP's elephant and lion habitats over what they have in Elephant Odyssey. The new Australia zone looks better than the Zoo's Outback does. Even some of the aviaries and indoor habitats at the SDSP were better than often given credit imho.

And that's the thing. To me, San Diego Safari Park was the far more memorable experience of the two. Even including things beyond the zoo nerd's usual preferences. For instance, I enjoyed the Petting Kraal at SDSP, with its mixture of domestic and exotic ungulates, much more than the Zoo's Children's Zoo.

On that last point, I will say that I do think the Sanford Children's Zoo and surrounding area planned at SDZ easily looks like the best children's zoo I have ever seen with different habitat zones for many smaller species, Komodo dragons, a new hummingbird aviary, another aviary, a reptile/amphibian/fish house, insects, beehive, etc. I would have to see what it looks like as a final product of course, but the plans to me look fantastic and infinitely more interesting than more barnyard contact zones.

I am not saying I dislike the Zoo. I do think it's a fantastic zoo, but it's not the best zoo either in my opinion. And I say that as someone, who, for all purposes should be biased toward it over the Safari Park, because I am much more into birds, reptiles, and amphibians than I am into mammals. There's nothing wrong with having different preferences either, but that's what zoo opinions are based on in the end: personal preferences.

 

In addition to all this, I think the "point" of a zoo's collection needs to be taken into account as well. SDZ surely has the better overall collection and is a much more complete "zoo" in the traditional sense (something mirrored by the two Berlins I've found) but how much of its collection is there simply to showcase diversity or to add to the zoo's quantity of animals vs how much is there to further breeding programs? Whether they're AZA programs or not, almost all of the many ungulate species kept by the safari park are apart of organized programs that the park is trying to maintain. This continues to be true for their elephants, carnivores, birds, and reptiles (Cyclura breeding compound bts). The zoo on the other hand, while partaking in many programs of its own, also showcases a lot of species that are just sort of there. This is especially true for their birds and reptiles, and historically for their mammal collection. Now I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with SDZ's collection plan. Who doesn't love visiting a zoo with a huge diverse collection on-display? Exhibiting diversity for diversity's sake is great, and I will always call for greater diversity in captive collections. I will, however, also always give more points to the collection that's attempting to actually maintain diversity through managed programs, even if they're often the only one really participating. In this regard, I'd give SDZSP the win over SDZ.

~Thylo

 

I haven't visited either of the zoos in question, but from what I understand:
-Both zoos make world class exhibits (Africa Rocks, Treetop trail in SDZ and Tiger trail and Australian Walkabout in SDZSP)
-Both zoos participate regularly in conservation programmes.
-Both zoos have an extremely impressive collection, although I would rate the zoo's collection higher than that of the Safari Park

HOWEVER
-The safari park's enclosures are on average larger and better for the animals
-The safari park has fewer species but houses the species it has better
-The zoo has more money, and the Safari park has more space

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these things

 

Very true

 

I wouldn't call Africa Rocks world class personally, but it's good.

~Thylo

 

I think the Safari Park is better (certainly, for the animals) but given the chance I’d likely visit the zoo again, simply because I enjoy that style of exhibits and animals more. However, SDZSP does notably more for conservation (breeding centers for various hoofstock, carnivores, birds, and reptiles, as mentioned; lots of land set aside as a preserve) and has much larger exhibits. My favorite area in the park is African Woods: perhaps an unpopular choice, but I find the exhibits to be an appealing style. I also enjoy the extensive botanical garden trails, great for finding native wildlife.

 

Which US zoos?

 

Is this perhaps (presumably?) because there is much more space there? If one organisation owns a huge, sprawling rural site and a densely packed urban one I think it's pretty clear where they would choose to locate most of their off-show breeding complexes.

 

Omaha, Bronx, Nashville, Dallas, and St. Louis in that order. @snowleopard may be able to supply more recent records. I'd also be interested in hearing about reports for birds and mammals.

~Thylo