I have the chance to visit either the Omaha Henry Doorly Zoo or the Saint Louis Zoo this summer and was wondering if the community could give me some pros and cons to each. I wouldn't mind visiting either one but would like some insight as to which one more people prefer. Thanks
What kind of animals do you want to see? Omaha has a very good aquarium. Both zoos have Antarctic penguin exhibits. St. Louis has elephants (Asian), and Omaha no longer does. St. Louis has river hippos with underwater viewing. Omaha has pygmy hippos. St. Louis has an excellent reptile collection. Omaha has some reptiles in the Desert Dome, but otherwise is fairly lacking in reptiles. Omaha has a large collection of Madagascan primates. St. Louis probably has a better general primate collection, but both zoos have good gorilla and orang exhibits. St. Louis has a great set of big cat exhibits. Omaha doesn't have very good cat exhibits. Neither zoo has good bear exhibits. Both zoos have really good hoofstock collections, although St. Louis's may be more diverse. Omaha has a great nocturnal house, a rain forest exhibit which some people here find magical and some find appalling due to inadequate animal exhibits, ditto the desert dome. St. Louis has a new insect house (built after I was there so don't know what it is like).
They both have animals and exhibits I would like to see so it really is a toss-up. I will get to both eventually though so it is just a matter of choosing which one to go to first. And if I decide Saint Louis it will be after the new sea lion exhibit opens. Just looking to see what other zoochatters have to say, and hopefully narrowing down my decision. I went to both Cincinnati and Columbus last year and enjoyed Columbus more if that helps. Thanks for the help.
I love Omaha so I suggest that. If nothing else, you can decide how much you like these exhibits that apparently a fair amount of people find appalling and decide for yourself. I haven't gotten that impression from being on this site for a few years, but DavidBrown seems to think it's the case. They each have some issues, but as a whole, I think most people like or love them. I'm sure the % of people who love them go up when we move away from the hardcore zoo crowd so it may depend on how you judge exhibits/zoos. Even if you don't end up loving it, you will have seen some of the largest indoor exhibits of their kind in the world with the Lied Jungle, Desert Dome, and Kingdoms of the Night. Then there's the very good aquarium, Madagascar, good ape exhibits, and a good collection.
My two cents: both zoos have outstanding sections and I would place each of them in the top 5 in all of North America. Saint Louis is consistently excellent throughout its grounds and its flaws will be rectified in the next few years. Omaha has some hit-and-miss areas that are dreadful but also some world-class, gargantuan exhibit complexes. There has been some backlash against Omaha on ZooChat, and a number of animal enclosures have been justifiably criticized for being too small, but the positives far outweigh the negatives. Allen Nyhuis, co-author of "America's Best Zoos", ranks Omaha as his #2 zoo in the U.S. (after San Diego) and he thinks that Lied Jungle, Kingdoms of the Night and Desert Dome are all in the top 14 exhibits in the nation. Jon Wassner, co-author of "America's Best Zoos", ranks Omaha in his top 3-4 zoos and he thinks that Kingdoms of the Night, Lied Jungle and Desert Dome are all in the top 10 exhibits in the nation. I personally would rank Omaha as America's #3 zoo (after San Diego and Bronx) and British zoo fan and author Tim Brown has seen about 550 zoos worldwide and he believes that Omaha is one of the top 5-7 zoos on the planet. Visit this summer and make your own decision, but both are MUST SEES for any serious zoo fan.
Thanks snow leopard, that's why it was so tough picking one because I've read so much on here and people pretty much having both the same ranking or being flip-flopped. Like I said I will see both, probably next summer for the one I don't go to this year, so its just a matter of which one to see first.
Here are a couple of places where we have discussed the Omaha exhibits and why they are or are not good exhibits for the animals: http://www.zoochat.com/569/henry-doorly-zoo-2010-malayan-tapir-193456/ http://www.zoochat.com/569/cat-complex-white-tiger-exhibit-183928/ http://www.zoochat.com/569/desert-dome-collared-peccary-ocelot-exhibits-184058/
St louis Pros-Free Zoo which is outstanding More to do besides the zoo in St louis Omaha Pros-Its truly one of a handful of iconic zoos in the US Honestly you probably could not go wrong just flipping a coin on it they are both that good. Team Tapir
There's a difference between saying the entire exhibit complexes are appalling to a sizable group and saying individual exhibits in the complex are appalling. You won't get much argument on the latter, but I still really like the Lied Jungle and Desert Dome despite a couple issues in each. It certainly creates an interesting dilemma when assessing the exhibits. But of course most very large zoos have some serious issues. We can post some links to some people being appalled with LA as well, which you like.
[Zooplantman;557268]What about Columbus did you enjoy more than Cincinnati?] It seemed to me that the grounds were taken care of more at Columbus than Cincinnati. I know it is a Botanical Garden too, but it the overgroth wasn't part of the Botanical Garden. Most of the hoof-stock and cats animals weren't out either at Cincinnati. I really enjoyed Asia Quest at Columbus and the North America section. Like I said to me it seemed like Columbus was better taken care of than Cincinnati, that could be because of the sizes too. I enjoyed both though but Columbus more so.
Thanks for that, I'm glad I asked. Cincinnati and Columbus do, IMO, have very different aesthetics about landscapes. It's also interesting that while Columbus is many times larger then Cincinnati (in acreage) their landscape staff is approx. 50% of Cincinnati's (my info on Cincinnati staf is rather dated, tho so I might be way off)
St Louis v Omaha..what a dilemma! I would JUST go for Omaha because of he scale of some of their buildings,but both are top notch.And the off- show snake taxa at St Louis issomething else plus Hellbender breeding too-but i dont know whether it is fair to mention that as it isnt available to everyone.Suffice it to say that if you are into reptiles it is worth trying to get permission to see them.
I think that we need to look at the Omaha exhibits from 2 perspectives: the human experience and the animal experience of the species that spend their lives in these buildings. From the human experience perspective there are some dazzling elements of the Lied Jungle, the Desert Dome, and the Night Kingdom: waterfalls, dirt trails winding through rain forest foliage, shifting sand dunes, desert river, bat caves, and a whirlpool. There are design elements here that are Disneyland level quality. They are impressive and they are worth seeing. Unfortunately the vast majority of animal exhibits within these buildings were built seemingly with 1950s animal care standards in terms of space and enrichment rather than late 20th century/21st century standards. Most of the animal spaces are tiny, sterile, concrete spaces. The hummingbird aviaries have been fatal for their residents because they were so small. The cat exhibits would never be acceptable in another modern zoo, ditto the tapir, aviaries, hyrax, wallaby, lemurs, etc. The Omaha mega exhibits are good show business. They are appalling animal exhibits. To the great credit of the current management they apparently are trying to remedy the animal problems by putting more appropriate animals into spaces and removing the worst exhibits entirely (e.g., the barren raccoon island that exposed their residents to alligator predation!). So my overall assessment of the Omaha Lied Jungle, the Desert Dome, and the Night Kingdom would be: Human show business perspective: dazzling Animal care perspective: epic fail Overall assessment: No modern zoo exhibits, no matter how dazzling from a show business perspective, can be considered "world class" if they fail from an animal care perspective. Omaha is not a world class zoo. It is a zoo with a great collection in some good exhibits and some really bad exhibits that have some dazzling qualities. I think that this would be a majority opinion in the animal care professional community, which is sometimes not the same as the zoo enthusiast community. St. Louis has been steadily removing their deficiencies with the construction of exhibits that seem by consensus to be really good. In the past decade they have rebuilt half the zoo with their River's Edge complex, outdoor ape exhibits, penguin exhibit, invertebrate house, and apparently coming soon a new sea lion exhibit. St. Louis seems like it is a world-class zoo from both an animal care and exhibit perspective, and would be a good role model for Omaha to follow if they want to be truly great.
Well that is your opinion and I don't agree with it, nor does the membership on this site as a whole as far as I can tell. I think it's a very over the top opinion. There are select issues in those exhibit complexes, I don't think the individual exhibits are mostly awful. I'll grant you that Omaha is not as strong as it should be in the animal care department, but as you say, it is improving, and looks like it will continue to do so. I do agree that animal welfare should be considered in rating a zoo and I think plenty of other zoos, including ones in your top 10, also have serious issues. In addition, I think many zoos, especially northern ones get a total pass from many on here regarding their indoor holding areas while zoos that publicly show what amount to indoor holding areas get bashed to no end. Omaha's cat complex is an example of that.
I find this dialogue interesting. What do you think is "over the top" about my opinion? You are right that it is my opinion, and obviously not widely shared by the public...but it is a widely held opinion in the professional zoo world, which as I pointed out does not always intersect with the Zoochat community, and that is fine. What I would ask people to do is look at the adequacy of the animal exhibits relative to the dazzling architectural set pieces in these exhibits. I haven't seen these exhibits for a few years so hopefully there have been significant improvements. The last time I visited MANY of the individual exhibits WERE truly awful. There was a clouded leopard in a concrete shoe box in the Lied Jungle. The tapir exhibit was by far the worst one I have ever seen. The mountain lion was in a worse concrete shoe box than the clouded leopard. The hummingbirds were in cages the size of a shower stall (which I was told had resulted in multiple fatalities). The hyrax and wallabies on the "canyon walls" had "exhibits" that consisted of barren, narrow ledges of concrete. Maybe we should continue this discussion in another thread as I feel bad about hijacking cubsmaster's thread here, or perhaps just leave things here and accept that we have differing views on the Omaha Zoo - and that's fine.
David Brown is dead on in his assessment of HDZ, at least a few years ago. Under new leadership, the zoo is making headway toward remedying the worst of the examples noted, and has developed a master plan that if implemented will eliminate all of the inarguably bad areas like the cat and bear complexes.
Well I know that you know that the mountain lion has been replaced with an ocelot. Yes, there are some examples of bad exhibits. Most of the animals are not in exhibits I would consider appalling or close to it, and thus I would not say the entire complexes are appalling or even close to it. That's why I think it's over the top. Basically, for you to think the way you do about Omaha, then you should be very critical of many zoos. If you're consistent, then great.
mweb08: you are of course welcome to your opinion that these enclosures and hence exhibits are not appalling. I hope that Omaha can become a great zoo that really lives up to its potential and reputation, as I don't think that it yet does. I'll leave things there and move on. cubsmaster: I hope that you have a great visit to whichever zoo you visit this summer and let us know what you think of it.
