What European Zoo Will be the ''San Diego Zoo'' in Europe/

I know that there are European zoos with far greater zoo-species-richness than the San Diego zoo ( arround 662 species) , but still there is not a zoo in Europe that at the same time, holds, okapi, bonobo, koala, three species of rhinos, giant panda, two species of elephants, and a great collection of venomous snakes and birds. Will Leipzig zoo, Cologne zoo, Planckendael zoo, Pairi Daiza, Burgers zoo, Chester zoo, Zoo de Beauval-edited, Berlin zoo, Zurich zoo, Tierpark Schonbrunn or Prague zoo/ become such a zoo in near future, or that will be some other zoo, or that won't happen in near future.

 

Did San Diego hold all of them?I really don't know

 

I think that yes. U.S. zoochatters will correct if not, I suppose.

 

Your best bets for such comprehensive megacollections would be Beauval and Pairi Daiza, although you could argue that Zoo Berlin is almost on the same level given the overall collection.

 

Does SD zoo hold 3 species of rhino?

 

I believe the safari park has three species. No clue about the zoo.

 

No, it only holds Indian. The safari park has three species though.

 

If your only comparison is number of popular and rare species, then I suppose a zoo in Europe could match San Diego. But if you are comparing every area - location, climate, visitor services, botanical collection - then no zoo in Europe will ever match San Diego IMO.

 

Berlin exceeds San Diego.

Randstad also exceeds San Diego. (Randstad - Wikipedia)
If safari park located in the middle of nowhere 40 miles outside the city calls itself San Diego, then Randstad is one city too, as you can drive between Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Amersfoort, Alphen, Burgers and Apenheul zoos without leaving the built-up area.

I would think twice before calling San Diego better than Berlin. Berlin zoo compared to San Diego zoo: has more species, costs three times less, is easy to walk around without being a hardcore mountain hiker, has three times bigger collection of big carnivores and hoofstock, breeding herd of elephants and the whole big aquarium section. And the food in the restaurants is better.
Safari Park compared to Tierpark is even more overpriced, has 5 times less animals, worse exhibits, no exhibit to hide from the heat, and bizarrely most of collection is seen from a kilometer away or not at all. Safari park beats Tierpark if one goes to the zoo to fly a hot-air balloon.
The one thing San Diego beats Northern Europe are cetaceans.

 

But there is a potential in Europe that a zoo will match San Diego zoo in these regards - for example climate - southern Spain, southern Italy, southern Portugal, though the European south is poorer than the U.S. south, including south California. Botanicall collection should be easy to establish.
But of course, I primarly taught on holding those hot species mentioned in the original post, and at the same time, also a great collection of venomous snakes and birds. I did not mentioned other taxa for examples monkeys, since a holding of a bonobo, mostly, is an indicator that the holding zoo has a great collection of primates too..

 

I personally haven't seen a bonobo.Are they also rare in Western zoo?

 

That's a bit much I guess, Arnhem (Burger's) and Apeldoorn (Apenheul) are not part of the Randstad.

There are just 10 European zoos that hold them (6 in Germany, 1 in France, The Netherlands, Belgium and the UK). A lot less than I thought. I don't know how rare they are in American zoos though.

 

AFAIK, at both sides of the Atlantic, there are around 120 bonobos at each side. In Europe they are kept at ten zoos - including six in Germany, and some zoos keep large numbers, a practice that should not be a case I think, and instead that, it is better such large numbers to be distributed around zoos.

 

I disagree, larger groups better mirror how these (very social) animals live in the wild and they seem to thrive (in terms of breeding) in captivity in larger groups. I do not think this (good husbandry) should be meddled with.

 

Primarly veterinary - or any accident, and with that, also ex-situ conservatory. For example, if one ape contract a tuberculosis or some unexpected highly-fatal disease, for example some primate herpes virus, or influenza virus, then the probaility that it will infect the others in the group is very high. I don't think on groups of less than a 7 or 8 apes, but those numbering nine, ten or more.
Secondary, other nations to be able to see a bonobos in their countries, or a locals to see bonobos closer at their homes.
We can talk also on ''safe conservation'' - it is not a smartest solution to keep all animals at one place.

 

Firstly, as far as I'm aware, such diseases are fairly rare in captive primate populations in Europe and, in any case, in a worse case scenario (all in a single collection dying -very unlikely) there'd still remain a further nine well-adjusted and breeding groups in Europe.

So you'd rip apart cohesive and balanced breeding groups to let a few zoo nerds see them a little easier (lets face it, the average zoo visitor wouldn't know the difference between a bonobo and common chimp).

Establishing successful groups is not always easy to achieve given their fission fusion dynamic. Basically splitting a successful group into two (or three) smaller groups would be highly unlikely to yield two (or three) smaller successful groups.

And in your next line you talk of conservation.

 

I don't think that's what Nikola was saying at all. There are other examples, like Drill, where the consensus on this site has been to praise a 'not too many eggs in one basket' style of population management.

I don't agree that there is any need to split up bonobo groups, but perhaps this principle is being defended a little too zealously in this thread?

(I'm not particularly directing this comment at TLD either)

 

Including the Ape Cognition and Conservation Institute there are a total of eight places in the US with bonobos; the ACCI, Memphis, San Diego, Cincinnati, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, Columbus and Milwaukee.