Love the list. Thanks for sharing. I encourage you to visit the FW Zoo next spring when the new African Savanna opens (no more hippo ditch, the biggest black mark on zoos in the country)...they are doing a big launch party at Martin House brewery in April...they have some excellent sours. I'll even buy you a beer and we can rant on Texas Wild!
I've been reading ZooChat for about three years...just new to posting. On the whole, it's an okay place. Also, I think I've been pretty clear on the positioning of my counter-arguments. I'm not a zoo employee by any stretch of the imagination but, like most of you, I do have friends and family that are intimately involved at zoos around the world and sit high on the boards of major conservation organizations like the IRF, Okapi Conservation Project, etc. A lot of my perceived "homer-ism" for the FWZ is mostly due to what they've told me over the years...and how the FWZ brass is positively perceived as it pertains to SSPs, international conservation efforts, etc. I also believe there is a massive anti-Fort Worth bias on this forum due to their slightly over-indexing public support in trash polls like the USA Today, Southern Living, etc. That's why I have decided to not post for so long.
I'll buy you a beer, too. Oh, and not to change the subject, but why does everyone on here also have an anti-Fossil Rim bias? You think that I'm a mark for the FWZ...I really love me some Fossil Rim (not the generic drive-through tour, it's pretty blah). The behind-the-scenes tour with the one of the docents is highly recommended, especially for rhino and antelope nerds.
I really enjoy Fossil Rim and my cousin (a ZooChat lurker) really, really loves it. We also did the Intensive Management Area tour once (thoroughly enjoyable) and the same trip stayed in the safari camp. I even included a chapter on Fossil Rim in my book Zoos of the Southwest. Honestly I don't remember anyone on ZooChat saying anything particularly bad about the place, so I am not sure why you feel this forum has a bias against it? The only negative criticism I recall, which is one I agree with, is the mix of animals from different continents in the same paddock.
This is relevant in terms of projecting the zoo going forward, which some of this conversation has been about, but it's completely irrelevant for rating the zoos in their current state.
BTW, since many of us complain (rightfully) about these rankings from various sources, maybe we should create a ZooChat ranking. It could be something like is done with college football and basketball where a bunch of people vote and then a composite top 25 (or whatever) is formulated. Obviously it wouldn't need to be updated all that often, but doing it once a year would be cool.
@mweb08 There have been various ranking threads over the years, but you are certainly welcome to create the one you have in mind.
Yes, but nothing like I'm suggesting; at least not that I'm aware of. There has to be sufficient interest and participation for this to work, though.
Alright, I wasn’t going to say anything but with talk of a ZooChat ranking system I’m gonna go ahead and throw down the gauntlet. Nothing against you, @mweb08; I’m sure you meant well. Rankings are meaningless. They are, in practice, completely subjective and rarely reflect the realities of zoo or animal management. People on this site like to judge enclosures they’ve never seen, built for animals whose physical and mental needs they know nothing about. And that’s fine... except when people start treating that stuff like objective evidence instead of the opinion pieces they actually are. The fact is that saying one zoo is “better” than another one is a gross oversimplification. Some of you scoffed at jaykkey for his claims of bias against Fort Worth, but he’s not wrong. I’ve seen it on this site too. I see people bash on the LA Zoo for its outdated enclosures, as if it’s not a well-respected zoological institution that is doing the best it can with the hand it’s been dealt. These lists and rankings seem fun, until you realize that people besides us read them, and make judgements from them. If people use our rankings as a guide for which zoos to visit, will zoos that are lower ranked for completely subjective reasons end up losing potential visitors - and revenue? We should all be free to share our opinions. But the fact is that most people on this site (and at this time I include myself in that category) don’t have the necessary knowledge or expertise to judge or rank zoological facilities, and I’m not on board with pretending like we can. And now a meme to lighten the mood: you think you can but you can't nemo - Google Search:
Sorry, completely disagree. Zoos are visitor attractions. Visitors do not need any special knowledge to evaluate which they prefer. Unless others' preferences are random, their opinions can be informative about what I (or you) would think, particularly when taken in aggregate. And, these lists can't be (completely) random given the congruence between them. Of course rankings are subjective – we're discussing subjective preferences. That doesn't make the discussion worthless.
Rankings are not completely meaningless because while some people love rankings and some folks hate them...at the end of the day it is the same old zoos near the top every single time. In the USA, give or take a few anomalies, there is always talk about San Diego, Bronx, Saint Louis, Omaha and other facilities. In the U.K. there is Chester, London, Whipsnade, Bristol and others. In Germany there is Berlin, Berlin Tierpark, Leipzig, Hamburg and others. There is unquestionably some zoos that are universally highly-regarded.
First of all... no need to be sorry! I expected disagreement and I think open debate is healthy. I appreciate both you and @snowleopard for sharing your opinions. Zoos are visitor attractions, but they are more than that. They are also educational facilities and conservation centers. Visitor preferences are fine, but whether people prefer one zoo over another says little about the contributions that both zoos make to educating and engaging people about wildlife, or about the contributions made to helping preserve ecosystems and endangered species... unless the people making judgments are taking those things into account, but from what I've seen on this site this is not usually the case. If someone wanted to judge an amusement park solely on visitor preferences, fine. For zoos and museums, there are other things that I think need to be taken into consideration. And again, I have no problem with subjective preferences, but that's all they are. I'm not saying the lists are random, but I disagree that opinions taken in aggregate are necessarily informative. A bunch of people having the same subjective opinion doesn't make anything objective. A publicly low-ranked zoo is not necessarily a "worse" zoo, and I take issue with people assuming that it is. As I said to @Giant Panda, I don't think this fact makes the rankings informative or meaningful. I agree that many people do tend to rank the same zoos at the top of their lists, but I think this is a poor reflection of the actual quality or contributions of these institutions. Many zoos (like San Diego and Omaha) have cultivated images of themselves as world-class zoos, and while I'm not saying that they aren't, treating these zoos as though they are somehow a mile above many others in the US and abroad is absurd.
I don't see any downside of people on a fringe message board sharing their opinions on how good zoos are. People (other than fellow zoo nerds) certainly aren't going to be making travel plans based on a zoo being ranked #12 on ZooChat. However, even if they did choose to go to that city over another with a zoo not ranked in the top 25, that's perfectly fine with me as anyone that would actually make a decision based off that ranking would likely be rewarded with a better zoo experience for them. Of course, and this should go without saying but apparently not, this is not a reflection on the animal care efforts at zoos or even their desire to do the best they can. Just like ranking a college basketball team over another one isn't a reflection on how well the coach helps those student athletes out in terms of life issues or the effort of the team.
While any rankings we place are somewhat subjective, I think a ZooChat ranking would be more objective than (for example) the USA Today poll on which the current thread is based. ZooChat members are, for the most part, more informed on zoo issues and more well traveled among zoos than the general public. I also do not think you need to see a zoo in person to have an opinion of it. The extensive photos and reviews provided on this site are enough for me to make a somewhat informed opinion. This is true of many things, not just zoos. For example I do not need to visit North Korea in person to know it's a terrible place to live.
ZooChat may not be mainstream, but it might not be as fringe as you think. Our administrators and moderators have pointed out before that our site receives a lot of visitors, both the general public looking for specific things as well as actual zoo staff and admin. From a personal satisfaction point of view, I understand that argument. I'm concerned that these rankings might contribute to zoos developing reputations as being worth visiting or not worth visiting, which will then perpetuate already existing inequalities between them. I buy that hypothesis, but I'm not convinced that the extra experience and knowledge goes far enough to make rankings objective enough to treat as objective content. Obviously, there are extreme examples where anyone can make an informed opinion. I've seen photographs of roadside zoo cages that I can label inadequate by eyeballing them. But I think a lot of people overestimate their ability to do this, especially with less drastic examples. I halfway agree with you on being able to make an informed opinion about zoos without visiting them. I think you can make a more informed opinion, but not necessarily one that is informed enough to be accepted by others as fact.
Unless ZooChat actively promoted these rankings, I'm highly skeptical that many people would see it. However, even if they do, I'd rather this potential list help inform their zoo visitation than the USA Today list. Most of the general public has little to no idea about how good zoos are besides their local and maybe semi local zoos plus the most well known zoos like San Diego, so this could be a useful resource to the few that see it.
Thus far this has been an interesting discussion, and while I tried to observe from the sidelines I'm feeling compelled to share my thoughts. In general I am not a fan of rankings or top zoo lists. I share a similar perspective on this as @Coelacanth18; I think reducing a zoo to a number loses too much detail. Think of a favourite exhibit you have at a zoo along with the reasons you love it (perhaps the size, the naturalistic elements, the enrichment opportunities etc) by ranking that zoo as "the 5th best" all of the things you enjoy about that exhibit are omitted from the discussion in exchange for a number. With that said, I appreciate that others find value and interest in compiling lists and I do not begrudge them for doing so. The bigger issue here is terminology, particularly the term "best." I think there would be a lot of contrasting opinions on here about what makes a zoo "the best." Is it just the exhibit space? The animal care at the facility? The conservation and research facilities at the zoo or the educational offerings at the zoo? Even if there is consensus that all of these factors are relevant, how do we evaluate, measure and judge each criteria and how do we weigh them against each other? For example is a zoo with average enclosures (assuming an agreed approach could be developed for operationalizing such a term) and exceptional conservation initiatives better than a zoo with excellent enclosures and more modest conservation programs? I think the way around this is drop the term best, and start looking at these lists along the lines of "favourite" zoos. Terminology such as that underscores the subjective nature of these lists, and eliminates a lot of the methodological issues with best. I had not considered the potential problem of individuals basing their zoo visits off these lists and the harm of being ranked lower based on subjective preferences to a zoos resources. I think that is a significant concern @Coelacanth18. However, when plotting a zoo trip whether it be one of the @snowleopard variety or a more modest weekend getaway choices have to be made about which zoos to visit. I agree these lists are highly problematic if they alone are influencing visitor decisions, I would give an edge to lists on this site over ones on other sites, but people need to get their information on zoos from somewhere. A more ideal solution comes from the other resources this site offers in addition to those lists; guest reviews and an exceptional photo gallery of exhibits. When I first started getting into zoos (perhaps later in life than most) I was dismayed as I took many shots of the exhibits themselves and found I had no outlet to share them on where they would garner any interest. Only after finding this site (after a bad experience basing a previous trip on one of those other lists) did I come to appreciate all the information resources this site offers for deciding which zoos to visit. Finally, regarding the discussion on whether one needs to visit a zoo to have an opinion on it, I tend to think that to have your own informed opinion on a zoo you need to experience it first hand. That's a fair example @Arizona Docent about North Korea, I would counter though by asking if it is the most terrible place to live or if there are places that are worse? Answering this question brings to mind some other less than desirable locals, but without experiencing them first hand I think it is difficult to compile any sort of ranking. This is considering the other end of the scale, but in ranking zoos that is essentially what is being asked.
I am willing to concede that a list of favorite zoos is perhaps more appropriate than a list of best zoos. I also think said list is more useful if the rankings are followed by the criteria used, as @m30t asks. For me, naturalistic exhibits with good photo ops are a prime concern. For others this may be irrelevant. It is also being discussed how many people in the general public view this forum. On the chance that many of my fellow Americans are reading this, let me apologize in advance for our Canadian and British counterparts adding an unnecessary "U" in the middle of the word favorite!
