San Diego Zoo Pandas are leaving San Diego Zoo

As a few of us have said here, they need to have a baby panda (or two) to be profitable. When I was there, at the Adelaide Zoo, just a few months ago, the keepers there were quite clear that they are still hoping for babies!

I know I sort of started this debate, and in doing so, I was not at all saying there isn't a down side to bringing in pandas. I was merely flabbergasted at someone's overly silly comment saying "Good riddance, stupid pandas" and then suggesting that some goofy serows or cranes would be preferable to pandas! While there's a lot to consider in bringing in pandas, and they aren't an automatic money-maker, once you've brought them in and made the major investments in their exhibit and set things up for their bamboo feeding, there's no sense at all in actually WANTING to get rid of them!

While a bottom-line financial analysis will not always show major profits, what is indisputable is that giant pandas are very, very popular and they will always bring a lot of attention and prestige to the zoo displaying them. This is true of Adelaide, Edinburgh, Memphis, Ahtari, Rhenen, Kuala Lumpur, and every other panda zoo. And then, if you're lucky enough that they breed and produce baby pandas, you've got a money-maker too.

 

ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?! The monorail?! Before I even get to this notion of the monorail being the best and most advertise-able asset that the Bronx Zoo currently has, let me take issue with your term "bonus animals." You seem to define these as species that are not common in zoos--species which the Bronx Zoo has in abundance. The kind of critically-endangered species that are considered "assurance colonies" are indeed bonuses to those of us on ZooChat, but not even the "back from the brink of extinction" Kihansa Spray Toad is going to fulfill a billboard's purpose, and neither would the long-extinct thylacine, which the zoo really did have 100 years ago. Billboards are aimed at the general public and appeal to their interests in popular animals like lions, tigers, elephants, bears, and sea lions. I doubt the average motorist looking up at a billboard would even know what a manatee is. If what you're really trying to get at is for a zoo to have something that differentiates it from other zoos, the Bronx Zoo has it in spades, and it's called REPUTATION. More than a century of excellence with animals from the scientific to the visitor level. The Bronx Zoo's name alone would be sufficient in getting people to visit, and most certainly without an image of the monorail.

Not every casual visitor knows what Zoochatters know--and wouldn't know to miss The World of Darkness or the Rare Animal Range. Nor does everyone know that in the years after the 2008 recession, the zoo lost almost $20 million in annual government funding and more than 150 employees across the 5 WCS facilities, dollars and positions that have not been restored. That's why there has been nothing new in a decade, except income-deriving ventures like the Treetops. But the conservation that the Bronx Zoo has always done in such an exemplary way continues both here and around the world. The words The Bronx Zoo are all that's needed on a billboard. That's reputation.

But how could you possibly overlook hundreds of popular and rare species in habitats that exceed almost all zoos in size and quality--and claim that the best thing in the Bronx since sliced bread is, of all things, the monorail?! If throngs of people are truly seeking this unremarkable ride that has been demolished nearly everywhere due to lack of interest, they would be much more likely to go to an amusement park. The monorail is about as far from "bonus animal" as you can get, satisfying neither billboard value or interest to those of us really invested in animals. I could predict with near certainty that no one on here visits FOR the monorail, but rather DESPITE the monorail. We abide by it, because it's the only way to see Asia.

I suggest that you stop and re-evaluate what it takes to make a zoo worthwhile. The Bronx Zoo entry on Wikipedia would be a good place to start.

 

Excellent post @AmbikaFan, you nailed most of my thoughts exactly. But to add:

I'd really like to see some evidence for the monorail being closed. I've never read anything about this before and I highly doubt the zoo would close the majority of its Asian exhibit down. Unless they plan of course is to make a walk-able trail? In which case I'm all for it, though I suspect the monorail is more preferable for the average guest.

I think by "bonus animal superstar" he means animals that will prove to be very popular with the average guest, not the zoo nerd. Animals like Lions, elephants, bears, tigers, sea lions, etc. are exactly what he's referring to-- I think-- but then the example of "billboard animals" falls apart when one realizes that species such as Ocelot, Boat-Billed Heron, and Nicobar Pigeon have also been used on billboards for major zoos. Additionally, he's included white tiger and Nutria in this category in the past for some reason. The point is moot, however, as Bronx has Lions, elephants, bears, tigers, sea lions, rhinos, gorillas, zebras, lemurs, and others that would fall into this category quite nicely.

They have, of course, built a rather fantastic new reptile display in the Zoo Center starring Komodo Dragons (another bonus superstar I'd imagine) and fully renovated the Children's Zoo. This is on top of the renovation and addition of standalone habitats all across the zoo in recent years. But yes, as far as huge multi-million dollar expansions go, they have been rather dormant. We'll have to see where things go once the aquarium is squared away.

Additionally, the notion that at least Congo Gorilla Forest, JungleWorld, and Madagascar! couldn't hold their own as top attractions for the zoo when practically everyone in the zoo world knows those exhibits by name is a little ridiculous to me. Baboon Reserve, Tiger Mountain, Himalayan Highlands, and World of Birds all hold their own prestige as well and most of those could easily be used to market the zoo as well.

~Thylo

 

Brevity is not my strong suit, so I always LOVE when people find even more to say!

The aquarium is a huge point to remember. Sandy wiped that facility out; I teach a mile down the shore on Coney Island and can't begin to describe the devastation that flooding caused. Two weeks later, I saw traffic cops wearing masks, wondered why, and then saw the dead vermin floating around. I had one of the water engineers in a class, and they lost so many specimens during the days without electricity. It's taken years and millions of dollars to bring it back. And, of course, we should be looking at the incredible new shark exhibit as WCS's shiny new penny, so yes there has been a significant project, just not at the Bronx campus.

I highly doubt that the monorail is going to close. As you say, it's the only way to see 2.5 acres of Asia exhibit, and it would be very costly to re-design that whole space to be of walk-through qualitiy. As it is, none of their holding areas or indoor habitats are visible, but any kind of pathway system would involve building new habitats and viewing areas. The only reason I can see for closing the monorail and incurring all off this cost is if the monorail itself requires an overhaul or replacement that would cost more than creating the walking paths. Or if having Asia open only three months of the year has suddenly become a factor. I actually think they should keep the monorail to see most of Asia, but build a large, new elephant habitat right on the shore that would be available by a footbridge and paths around just the new habitat. Some of the other Asia species like the Amurs and rhinos are also housed on "the mainland," so visitors can ask questions, but an elephant exhibit MUST offer people the chance to get up close, spend time, ask keepers questions, and appreciate the animals. They could/should do that now even with just Happy and Patty.

 

This makes sense, though he has listed at least elephants in the past iirc. To me, it makes for a rather poor metric to evaluate a zoo with, simply due to how fluid the definition is. It also implies that zoos such as Highland Wildlife Park and Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum are "objectively" poorer zoos because they purposefully do not house animals that he would consider a "bonus superstar" (unless Polar Bears count, but then that's entirely up to him and probably changes depending on the zoo at hand...). This is, of course, ridiculous-- something I know he would agree with as those two zoos in particular are still excellent regardless. That then means that there are zoos that are exceptions to the rule, but which zoos are exceptions and which are not is completely up to the individual being asked the question. This makes this a very poor rule as, at the end of the day, it boils down to "I think X zoo isn't as good because I want them to keep Y species" which is an entirely subjective criticism to make.

Also, if a species a zoo already keeps doesn't count because they already keep them, then that devalues the perceived status of said species because they would no longer be a "bonus superstar" for the zoo that's already keeping them. Ergo, Giant Pandas would be a "bonus superstar" for the Bronx because they're a very famous species, but they would not be for Smithsonian because they already keep them. Giraffes might be, however, as they do not keep them, but they wouldn't be for Bronx because they already do. This also means pandas are a "bonus superstar" for San Diego at the moment, but they weren't a year ago. This inherently doesn't work as a criticism because there is no way to actually "correct" it. Of course, seeing as that's a pretty silly way to look at it, I'm sure that's not what his definition is. But now we're back at square one, where we all have to offer up suggestions for what the definition could be because no one really has any idea other than "animal he likes and thinks all zoos should have" (though of course if all zoos had them then they'd no longer have the prestige he talks about......).

~Thylo

 

If I were San Diego, I'd take this time to do a complete redesign of the panda area for if they come back. Bring it to par with D.C. and give all the animals larger/more immersive exhibits like D.C. If San Diego wants to keep their rep, they gotta be on their toes

 

They had a series of "hillside" exercise yards in the design of the Panda Research Center, so why not utilize those, ditch the theming and go for a truly immersive/laboratory setting for which to study giant pandas, Sichuan takin, red pandas and Mangshan pit vipers? (Maybe leopard cats, a couple pheasant species and some amphibians would do quite nicely as well, expanding into the hillside/Lost Forest).

 

The thing with "bonus" animals is most people don't know they're uncommon in zoos. The average person doesn't get excited for a trip to somewhere with tasmanian devil, wolverine, kea, or pronghorn, because they assume they're in plenty of other zoos, just like tigers and sea lions and buffalo are. The only real exceptions I can think of are giant pandas and whale sharks (and orcas, but that's not going so well now...)

 

For me, the Tier 3 represents the kinds of species I'm much more likely to seek out.

 

Tier 3 doesn't make any sense to me. The only cohesive thing seems to be that they're species that are more likely to be active, but others like sea lions are missing. Many of those are common in the USA. And I can't imagine the vast majority of people going somewhere just to see a beaver or a gibbon.

 

Tier 3 runs the gamut from extremely endangered like sea otters to the mere pedestrian like beavers, and the list also runs the gamut of the species' frequency in zoos. I have only ever seen a walrus or cape buffalo or moose once in zoos, while it now seems as if everyone has red pandas and naked mole rats. Oh, and both popular and endangered elephants don't merit mention anywhere! The rationale simply eludes me.

 

Despite all speculation it is still an unknown / unbeknowest to us what will replace the giant panda at SD Zoo. Nor if there will ever be a renewed Project 2 - Giant Panda at the zoo.

 

Many of the species in that tier aren't even particularly active animals, though. Lions and Nutria for example are unlikely to put on much of show for visitors.

It also includes animals whose presence in zoos directly contradicts their purpose: ie white Lions and tigers.

The rationale is rather simple: It's a list of animals he likes and therefore thinks more highly of zoos that keep them, which is what makes it such a poor metric for judging objectivity in zoos.

It's been mentioned several times that the zoo has been very public about wanting pandas to return to the exhibit.

~Thylo

 

Animal Planet is advertising a new sister show to the Bronx Zoos's The Zoo, to be called The Zoo:San Diego, starting 8/10. I have no idea when they began filming or when the decision to do the show was made, but it will be interesting to see if we get any further clues as to why they left or if the subject is ignored completely. It's also possible they decided to do the show as not merely getting PR for the zoo, but to raise money for possibly-hiked panda fees.

The promo music is a super-dreamy version of "Pure Imagination" from Willy Wonka, that almost seems to suggest that this will be a fictitious wondrous land filled with ethereal creatures, and the final shot of a beautiful woman holding up an exotic-looking creature I can't recognize, while children look on agog with wonder, almost suggests a fantasy program. It's very specific theming, almost suggesting Doctor Dolittle. I'll be curious to see how they relate these ads to the actual programming.

 

I keep seeing the commercials for it while watching the show about Georgia Aquarium, and I've been getting the same weird vibes about it. Hopefully it's shot like their other zoo/aquarium shows, since they seem to be doing well, and it's just odd marketing!

 

Right?! That perfectly coiffed blond model and that dream-like music couldn't be further from the hands-on care and real life-or-death situations that we all know zoos deal with every day. Very weird, especially coming from a zoo as fine as SD. It almost feels as if it's going to be that creepy realistic animation or cgi.