Top 5 Zoos in the USA

Once again, the only problem I (and I think many people) have with ANyhuis' analysis is that he views it as being objective, when it is not. If it wasn't the case, then why would I even criticize his posts since everyone has the right to think a zoo is better than another. Since it is not, I take that his analysis is "supposedly" objective and reply to his posts as such.

 

You said the climate argument is the only one you recall they made. You made similar comments before towards me. It is belittling to reduce everything those two and I said down to just one aspect out of the several that have been argued. It's also disingenuous.

And I'm not applying my opinion to everyone. Either reading comprehension isn't your strong suit or you intentionally misrepresent people's stances or as just mentioned, you reduce somewhat comprehensive arguments down to just one thing that you think you've proven incorrect.

 

He's stated it's for fun but then in the same posts has repeatedly claimed that his findings are objective and belittled anyone who disagrees...

That is the opposite of what has happened here. This thread was created to discuss the San Diego Zoo only and to have people answer that very question you mentioned. Many (not all but many) of those who prefer SDZ are the ones who brought Bronx into the discussion and have been tearing it apart ever since. In response, myself and others who prefer Bronx have defended the zoo as anyone would. I, too, think ranking zoos is pointless- that's why I don't do it and have not done so here. As I said the very purpose of this thread was to have people answer that very question you stated while I also shared my own opinions of the place. Clearly that does not lead into a civil discussion.

Again, and with all due respect, I think you've missed something here. This thread was about SDZ from the start and was only ever supposed to be about that one zoo. Personally I don't think criticizing rows of bear grottos and metal mammal cages is putting the zoo "under the microscope" and criticizing it "for ever piece of trash on the road or penny spent on admission" but either way that was the point of the thread when it came to SDZ. Other people brought Bronx into this and other people have torn it apart for every single reason under the sun while simultaneously praising Omaha, Columbus, and St. Louis as being better. I already asked why everyone who felt the need to drag Bronx through the mud here didn't want to comment on the often much poorer aspects of some of these zoos and I was ignored. I myself am not starting a discussion on them for two main reasons: one, I've unfortunately yet to visit any of those other zoos, and more importantly two, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with them- or Bronx. Additionally, I don't think anyone here has ever claimed Bronx is objectively the better zoo. I certainly haven't. There is a huge difference between trying to prove one zoo is superior and simply defending a zoo from others' harsh criticisms. Correct me if I'm wrong but is that not how debates work?

~Thylo

 

My head is swimming trying to keep up with this thread!

I am going back to where I started reading today, on the price debate. For the record, San Diego now includes the skyride at no extra charge. The only extra fee (or higher price ticket) still is if you want the bus ride. Yes $50 is expensive but the zoo is jam packed every day in summer (and most weekend days rest of year). If they lowered the price or offered a free day, it would be completely unbearable. In fact they did offer a free day several years ago and the crowds were so horrendous they vowed never to do it again. Instead, local families of low income can receive discount tickets (I think these are obtained through the city or county, not sure how it works, but I know I read the zoo stated that is an option).

People say Bronx is suffering financially because city (or is it state?) cut back their funding. I will point out that San Diego has never received public funding (other than free use of the park land).

It is unfortunate that San Diego cannot offer an easy way for people to see it without spending big bucks. But I honestly don't see how it is feasible given the crowds. The ideal solution IMO would be for them (or someone else) to open a second smaller zoo to appeal to locals with children, but I doubt this will happen (especially since they have the Safari Park to run).

Now to stir up trouble. I have never been to Omaha Zoo and almost surely never will. It is unfair for me to assess a zoo I have never been to, but none of the photos I have seen convince me that it is anything other than mediocre. People often cite that it is the most visited attraction in the region. But I think that has to do with the fact that there is nothing much to see in the region (Nebraska is not exactly a tourist magnet). As I said I have not seen the zoo in person, so don't take my opinion too seriously.

 

As I said earlier, Henry Doorly has come a long way in the past decade. The negatives are not nearly as numerous or bad as they used to be.

Maybe check it out after Asian Highlands is complete with a new tiger and snowleopard exhibit included.

 

I don’t care who from or how the zoos receive their funding. I care that myself and my family can visit for a few days without leaving a gaping $300 hole in our wallets. Slashed funding or not, Bronx is able to offer me a fantastic zoo at an admittedly high, but not over-the-top price.

 

Thank YOU, mweb08! You truly seem to "get it" what I'm trying to say and how I've tried to not be offensive, condescending, or insulting -- and yet anyone who disagrees with me whines that they are being insulted. Sorry, but that's usually a sign that you "may be" losing an argument. Thank you also, Echobeast and dublinlion, for your kind, supportive words.

Sorry that I can't be clearer on this, but there really is a statistical principle that if you accumulate a large enough number of subjective rank statistics, the accumulation becomes "sort of" objective. No, I am NOT claiming our analysis results are purely objective, but they are objective enough to satisfy us, which is why at least the 3 of us are convinced that San Diego is a deserving #1 and Bronx is a deserving #5. You should know that, going into this analysis, one of the 3 of us had the exact same views as many of you, believing that Bronx is clearly better than San Diego. But after seeing the results of our analysis, he changed his mind.

Here's one way to look at it: The 3 of us evaluated 28 factors at the 5 zoos, for a total of 84 rankings for each zoo. If we just look at San Diego and Bronx, we ranked SD>Bronx in 69 out of those 84 ratings, or 82% of the time. If this percent was closer to 60%, it wouldn't be so convincing, but at 82%, you have to believe that all 3 of us must have been determined to rank San Diego ahead of the Bronx in a very biased way. If you truly believe that about us, well then I'd ask you, now who's being insulting?

When you want to concentrate on the admitted fact that the ratings originated from only 3 of us, recall that I invited any of you to join us, and I'll send you a ballot. (Of course you have to have been to all 5 of these zoos, and pledge to rate honestly.) I've received no takers on this so far.

NOT. AT. ALL. The whole point of our use of 28 categories is recognizing how very, very different zoo visitors are. Some love big animals like elephants and giraffes, some love birds, and some (especially young boys) love reptiles. Some like rides and shows, and some don't. Our basis for deciding what regular visitors like comes from observing zoo visitors and their behavior at over 400 zoos worldwide.

While you may not have intended on it, this is very insulting. In the world of statistics, "bias" is the dirtiest of dirty words. All statisticians work hard to set up studies that are unbiased, and when bias appears, to address that bias. While I'm not claiming our analysis was totally objective, I am confident in saying our analysis was 100% unbiased. We had no goal we were looking for in our results, and indeed, we were somewhat surprised by those results.

In writing two travel guidebooks about zoos, an early decision had to be made (by me and by my publishers) as to what we should include as "zoos". Are the Sea World parks zoos? Is Busch Gardens? Is the Audubon Insectarium in New Orleans? How about aquariums? In both of my books, we decided that our books would only cover regular zoos, that is facilities which display a variety of animals, and thus not aquariums, not aviaries (Pittsburgh, Utah), and not oceanarium parks. "These", we decided, "are a different animal". Thus, our analysis was set up with these regular zoos in mind, and thus it is not friendly to specialized zoos, which frankly are much more common over in Europe (Walsrode, Apenheul, Parc des Felins) than here in the USA. So this is not a "classist" attitude, it's a decision made by me and my publishers, so that our books would appeal to the widest possible audience. And honestly, I'm very happy to be appealing more to regular zoo visitors than to the ZooChat audience.

Now who sounds haughty? We glorified members of ZooChat are the only ones who know what is best for the animals! Zoo visitors don't care about the animals -- yikes, you sound like PETA! Actually, aren't you the one who's told us how much the Bronx Zoo visitors care about conservation? My observation has been that most zoo visitors care a LOT about the animals and, as long as you don't "preach" at them, they care a lot about conservation. Most visitors I've seen are not happy if the favorite animal in front of them looks unhealthy or abused, and almost all zoo visitors want to see more baby animals!

Try looking at zoo billboards and other forms of zoo advertising.

 

I'm no expert on statistics but I would very much love if you could link me to said principle if it is detailed somewhere. Still no expert but I've heard from way more knowledgeable members than I am on the subject (such as @lintworm) that since only three people (I know you've offered people to review things by themselves but that is not the case as of now so I'm considering that three people were sampled for this study) were sampled, it cannot be truly objective, do you refute that?

Nice to know, however, that instead of trying to be objective; the study is now trying to be sort of objective. I guess.

Great to know you're trying to have a diverse lot of zoo visitors. I still think elephants, giraffes and others do not really deserve to be different categories, as you've presented on this post; having them as big animals seems good enough (a zoo that has giraffes but no elephants can still be pretty popular to visitors). I'm wondering though, at all the zoos you've visited (I believe the 400 zoos census is the number of zoos Snowleopard, yourself and the other person [sorry, I don't know his name] have visited?) did you ask all the visitors about what they liked and why they visited or was it assuming those two points (perhaps by overhearing discussions?). Not a critic, I'm genuinely interested.

 

Statista defines objectivity as this..
"Objectivity is an important criterion during data ascertainment. Basically, it means that a method of data collection must always come to the same result, regardless of who ascertains the data. So whether interviewer A or interview B conducts a survey should not make any difference. Similarly, when conducting an observation, the documentation must be carried out in the same fashion by all parties; the same goes for the execution and management of an experiment."

Statisticians generally do not call their information objective, as they inherently will have biases especially if the information is derived from individual perspectives. But my main issue, is that you seem to act as if your dataset is complete enough based off your resume. A sample size of 3, who composed the entire study is inherently pretty subjective. You devised the categories, knowing you would apply them to the zoos included in your study. Then you took part in said study, with criteria entirely based upon your own observations and perspectives. Its not like you randomly sampled 35 zoochat members on these categories, you used 3 members are then act as if the dataset is representative. If me and some of the other Bronx Zoo defenders, made up a study and then took part in it; without any outside participants, it would be called an opinion poll. So what makes this any more than opinion based for you?

 

I said conservation is apart of the visitor experience at Bronx.

I've seen Maned Wolves, toucans, boas, alligators, macaws, flamingos, poison dart frogs, and Dinosaurs on zoo billboards before, were they all included in your study?

~Thylo

 

This is a little bit complex, but it sort of says what I'm saying -- that subjective correlations will increase (and thus become more objective) when the sample size increases.
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/bgsu1211901739/inline

 

You know that isn't what I was talking about when I said that. Of course the bear grottos and corn cribs need to go. I'm talking about criticizing things such as the map, accessibility and affordability that almost never get criticized when talking about other zoos.

But his point is that you see animals such as koalas, pandas, and Tasmanian devils on billboards more often. The billboard was just an example of what animals are popular at zoos and they gave those animals their own category because of their extra draw. It is a valid criticism of Bronx that they don't have as many of those big draw animals as San Diego. Doesn't make it a bad zoo or worse than San Diego, it just means that some individuals prefer zoos that have them over zoos that do not.

He has offered to anyone who has visited all 5 zoos an opportunity to join the study. He has not closed the study off to only 3 people like you are implying. He thinks that this is pretty representative of because the members of the study have seen a lot of zoos and have visited the best ones in the country. If you want to join, go ahead and visit the other zoos and state your opinion in the study. Maybe requiring members to have visited all 5 zoos is too restrictive but how else are we going to get actual opinions based on real life visits as opposed to hearing what your friends say or looking at pictures and reviews online? Even if we had a study with the same methods but only had Bronx and San Diego as the subjects, I still think there wouldn't be enough people who have visited both zoos to satisfy you guys.

And yes that would be an opinion poll if it was only Bronx zoo fans. But ANyhuis has stated that they went in not expecting San Diego to be their overall winner and yet it did. So this is a totally not valid criticism of the study.

 

Perhaps but as it has never been the case, the sample size is still of three people; not matter how many zoos they have visited. I personally asked @ANyhuis whether he asked visitors about what they liked when visiting those 400 zoos he states but he didn't reply and that's the only way I can think of the number of zoos visited being an important factor, because otherwise; it clearly isn't.

 

I actually did not know that but thank you for clarifying. The map and affordability are 100% things that are criticized when talking about other zoos. I take them into account at least. As for accessibility (assuming you mean to get to the zoo and not accessibility around the zoo) I agree it's a bit more nitpicking but it's never been a major part of the conversation.

I can agree with you here that it is a criticism of Bronx that they don't have as many "bonus superstar animals" as SDZ does, but my point is that that is an absolutely silly category to include, especially when based off of species seen most often on zoo billboards. He already gave most of these animals their own completely separate categories, giving them what will now be a third category they apply to does nothing but give SDZ an unfair advantage. It's just an excuse to give the zoo more points while punishing other zoos for having a different collection plan even if those plans focus on more threatened species instead of just what's popular. Bronx keeps all of the main ABC species guests want to see except for hippos and kangaroos, the only difference is SDZ keeps more species such as two species of elephants mixed together despite modern husbandry and a whole row of different bear species in substandard conditions. The survey appears to barely account for the asterisks that come next to the fact that these animals are present, however, and now gives SDZ at least 21 more "points" since they keep a random abundance of these animals regardless of whether or not they're kept in the best conditions. As he himself states, the main emphasis is on how viewable the animals are, and as such the substandard bear enclosures might rank higher than Bronx's larger bear habitat that allows the animals to escape the public eye.

It does not matter how many zoos he and the others have visited, it's still a sample size of only three. Despite what he claims, 1+1+1≠84, it equals 3. I definitely have no where near the understanding of statistics as he does but I have taken college courses in it and I know what a sample size is. It does not matter how many times one person contributes to the study or under how many categories, it is still the opinion of a single person and as such n=1.

He says that but, as I've discussed above, the entire study is sort of designed in SDZ's favor to begin with. That is a valid criticism of the study.

~Thylo

 

So again you say our analysis is biased, designed in San Diego's favor. Again I say, do NOT accuse me of being insulting, when you continue this insult. Our analysis was unbiased. Period.

I'm a bit stunned that you have no understanding of Bonus animals. Why do you think zoos pay a million dollars per year to have giant pandas? Why are Toronto and Calgary paying big money to host pandas for 5 years? Why do a few zoos each summer rent a couple koalas from San Diego, spending a lot of money to build a temporary koala habitat? (My zoo here in Indianapolis has had the koalas here twice in the summer.) In case anyone is interested, the animals I consider "Bonus animals" are in tiers, with Tier 1 being the ultimate zoo superstar, giant pandas. Tier 2 would be koalas, dolphins, manatees, and gorillas. Tier 3 would include a much wider variety including walruses, kiwis, hummingbirds, chimpanzees/bonobos, orangutans, gibbons, spider monkeys, colobus monkeys, okapis, Komodo dragons, tapirs, sea otters, giant otters, coatis, naked mole rats, giant anteaters/tamanduas, red pandas, beavers, nutrias, mooses, Cape buffalo, African wild dogs, hyenas, snow leopards, cheetahs, white tigers, white lions, mandrills, and Tasmanian devils. Any of the above animals draw extra viewers to their exhibit with extra excitement at seeing this "unusual animal". Sometimes it's because the animal is just extra fun to watch (nutrias, etc.).

Sorry, I forgot to answer your question. While I have done some asking of visitors about their likes and dislikes in zoos, but mostly I'm referring to watching visitor behavior, such as which exhibits draw the biggest crowds, and at which exhibits to visitors seem most excited and spend the most time at? That is mostly how we gauge what visitors like.

One thing I cannot understand, especially with Thylo, is why is it so bad that the Bronx Zoo may be the 5th-best zoo in America? The fifth-best is really good! I sure wish my local Indianapolis Zoo was the 5th-best in America! While I love my local zoo, it would be lucky if it's the 25th-best zoo in the USA. As someone pointed out, why is ONLY the Bronx Zoo supporters who are offended by this analysis and complaining about it? Why are there no fans of Omaha, St. Louis, or Columbus (or any other zoo) complaining?

 

You guys clearly aren't understanding what I was saying here. The way the study was built, it only makes sense that people that have visited all 5 zoos could participate. I only brought up the fact that all three had been to hundreds as an example of the kind of person it takes to have visited all 5. It was not an appeal to authority or anything else you may be insinuating and it wasn't a comment on why the sample size was acceptable. I agree that there should be more people in the study as 3 is not enough. I'm not going to comment on whether the inflated number of 84 is valid because I am not a statistics expert and I wouldn't bring anything to the conversation that hasn't been said already. All I am saying is that there is inherently a very small number of people in the world and on this forum who can say that they have visited San Diego, Henry Doorly, Saint Louis, Bronx and Columbus and only those people would realistically have a say in this sort of study. I was making a comment on nczoofan's example of how if a bunch of Bronx fans got together and did a study it would be dismissed as an opinion poll. It would be an opinion poll because probably none of the people involved would have visited all 5 zoos and wouldn't be able to make relevant remarks that someone who has visited all 5 would be able to.

I agree that the study could have been done in a different way but I do not agree that the study was designed in SDZ's favor. Let's look at the categories again.

African Animals & Exhibits, Asian Animals & Exhibits, Australian A&E, South American A&E, North American A&E, Rain Forest A&E, Desert A&E, Polar A&E, Nocturnal A&E, Bonus Animal Superstars, Elephants, Other Large Mammals, Felines/Cats, Bears, Marine Mammals, Great Apes, Other Primates, Hoofed Animals, Penguins & Seabirds, Other Birds, Reptiles & Amphibians, Insects & Arthropods, Aquarium/Fish, Children's Zoo/Domestics, Rides, Entertainment/Shows, Petting/Feeding Opportunities, and Restaurants

The only categories that I can see SDZ having a clear advantage in over Bronx is Bonus Animal Superstars. Bronx, looking at this and using my limited knowledge of the place, would have advantage in multiple categories here. Marine Mammals would be a wash for SDZ unless polar bears are included because SDZ has no pinnipeds. Penguins and Seabirds would most definitely go to Bronx as they have their stellar coastal bird aviary and aquatic bird house. Great Apes could arguably go to Bronx because of CGF alone, and so on.

You have not shown how SDZ has an inherent advantage in this study. I really do not see how SDZ has one category that gives it an advantage against all 4 of the other zoos in the study.

 

The operative words are "clear advantage". By the way, we were all in agreement that Bronx is the #1 zoo (probably in the nation) for Asian Animals & Exhibits.

 

The problem with pandas is that it is made clear by studies that zoos lose money gradually with time. The first year is always a huge hit but then less and less people come to see them and one day the cost that is made to bring them and feed them overcome the funds that come from people visiting the zoo. Some notable exemples of this are Edinburgh or Adelaide which did bring quite a few people during the first year (as far as I remember) but now really struggle and are definitely not going to extend their loan.

Thank you for answering. So it's basically what people seem to spend most time at and like the most. Doesn't sound very certain nor objective to me.

Look, I have no problems whatsoever with you ANyhuis but the one thing I cannot understand is why Thylo should think that San Diego is better than Bronx when he visited both. I think he can have an opinion on both zoos and decide which one is better. The thing is who remotely cares that a zoo is better ranked than another, it's not a competition. I really love Crocoparc Agadir because I find it to be beautiful (especially the botanical part) but I definitely cannot (in my opinion) view it better than Tierpark or Zoo Berlin or whatever. Yet, I still very much enjoy it as a stand-alone park. My point is that even if I was to rank Crocoparc Agadir along with all the zoos I have visited, it would only be for fun and I wouldn't try to be remotely, not even "sort of" as you explain it, objective. Now I know your study is meant for "regular zoo visitors" but do they really need a ranking? Can't you just describe what every zoo has and they choose what they want to see or even if you want to rank them so they know whichever zoo you prefer (which is not necessary in my opinion), do you really need to specify it is a sort of objective ranking. That's the only part I don't get about your study, because otherwise; although I don't think it's a necessary study, I think it's a fun project.

Oh and by the way, no fans of Omaha, St.Louis or Columbus are complaining because they were never brought into this thread (except for said ranking). I can assure you they would try to defend their zoos if something bad was said about them. Another thing is there is no such thing as a "Bronx Zoo supporter" or I have yet to see one. Some people love Bronx so they defend it but it's not a sort of all-in where only Bronx can be the perfect zoo and all the other zoos should be undermined. It's not a perfect dichotomy where you get Bronx Zoo supporters as you call them and San Diego Zoo supporters on two sides. We're all just zoo-nerds that try to defend their favourite zoos.

 

Going back to the issue of species collection, while of course everyone has their own preferences and sometimes non star animals can be more entertaining than the stars for a variety of reasons, but most of us can likely agree that some animals are more valuable to a zoo than others when judging how good it is to visit.

I think a good way to consider that is to pretend that you're a zoo director that is creating a zoo that you want to appeal to the masses and the zoo nerds. In this hypothetical, if you could get any realistic species you want without having to consider the cost to build the exhibits, feed and care for the animals, etc, which species would you choose?

My wife and I had fun with this once after a visit to the Smithsonian Zoo as we had an animal draft for our pretend zoos while visiting a brewery.

In my opinion, The San Diego Zoo does a fair amount better in this regard.

Of course there are many other factors to consider in judging zoos, but as I said in my summer road trip thread, I think a zoo with a stronger collection (obviously this is subjective) has the higher ceiling.

And I hope this isn't seen as tearing apart The Bronx Zoo. I don't think that's been happening at all in this thread, but obviously some Bronx fans feel differently.

 

The San Diego Zoo most definitely has a more complete collection ABC's compared to the Bronx Zoo, yet I feel an ABC species can be promoted by a good exhibit or hampered by an average to bad exhibit. Lions, giraffes and rhinos are an example. Do the San Diego Zoos exhibits amplify or hamper the popularity of these species? Its rather obvious for me given the viewing opportunities, size of the exhibit and plantings within these exhibits. Bears are another example, given the collection kept in a row of uninspired below-average grottos. Its cool to see multiple species, yet people barely spend any time watching the species from my experience just due to the old style lineup of the exhibits. The Bronx zoo may only have 1 species of bear, yet the exhibit is superior and definetly pleaser the crowd more than any bear exhibit bar the Giant Panda's at San Diego. Gorillas would be the Bronx's strong-suit in this. Having 3 large groups of gorillas, 2 breeding groups and a bachelor group in such a massive exhibits defiantly amplifies the experience. Visitors spend a significant amount of time on this species at this exhibit, and in the complex at large. In San Diego the 3 great ape species in the Lost Forest, are really cool but again it feels repetitive (especially Gorillas and Bonobos).

And definitely the general public does care about certain species more, thats obvious. All the talk about Pandas and Koalas may be annoying, yet people generally buy into it. While I would not make this its own category, I would definitely boost San Diegos score for bears/carnivores to account for the Giant Panda. Yet imo they're exhibit is average at best, and does take away from the visitor experience. Especially because of the cramped design of the viewing area in comparison to the superior exhibit at the National Zoo.

Bronx and San Diego both house the majority of their birds, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians in good exhibits in regards to animal welfare. Yet the San Diego zoos exhibits are often more utilitarian in design from my experience. Looking at World of Birds vs the smaller aviaries at the San Diego Zoo, the glass/open artfully done exhibits of WOB's do a better job at displaying the species and keeping peoples attention compared to the thick black mesh of many exhibits at San Diego. Many of San Diego's lesser known species are in rather repetitive exhibits, Monkey Trails, Reptile Walk and more. So good for the animals, just not as good at holding the attention of an average visitor. Africa Rocks seems to have been a great addition in this aspect, although I have not seen it.

Personally I do believe that better exhibits and interpetation is

Lastly let me state that my opinion is that the Bronx Zoo is the superior zoo, but I loved the San Diego Zoo. The bird collection, gardens, and the way the zoo deals with the sites challenges all were really interesting. I spent 2 full days their and throughly enjoyed it, I just felt a little upset by the average-ness of the popular animal exhibits. I was most definitely impressed though with the majority of the other exhibits though, yet for me they were not astounding exhibit design (especially the smaller bird aviaries in Lost Forest). San Diego is defiantly my 2nd fave zoo I have ever visited, far ahead of the NC Zoo my 3rd.