This largely mirrors my thoughts as well. Hawaiian monk seal and dhole are easily rare enough to trump a solid collection of other carnivores at Bronx (although it should be mentioned that their collection also includes spotted hyena). From the pictures I've looked at, exhibits for this category are high quality at both institutions; however, I agree that the bear enclosures are an easy win for Minnesota and the leopard enclosure in JungleWorld is a stumbling point for Bronx, while all else is relatively equal. While I'm siding with underdog Minnesota for now, it's a very close call for me and I can't promise that good opposing arguments won't convince me to switch.
That should have said in the US, my bad My point was that Bronx has some history in innovative large carnivore exhibitry. ~Thylo
This isn’t really much of a competition- Bronx wins rather easily here, imo. The turning point for most people seems to be Minnesota’s better grizzly exhibit and their Hawaiian monk seals. There is no lie in saying that Minnesota does much better for its brown bears, but Bronx isn’t too shabby either- in fact, they’ve got one of the better brown bear exhibits I’ve seen. It is worth noting as Thylo did that Bronx does have significant vertical variation whereas Minnesota just provides a few climbing trees. So, taking a look a rarity accommodations- Minnesota’s rarest animals are clearly the monk seals, with two other US holders, both in Hawaii. Bronx’s are the Sitka brown bears, with no other US holders. Minnesota: Spacious, but sterile concrete tank, little land area (for animals that do spend a lot of time in the sun basking), no attempt at naturalism, and entirely indoors. Bronx: Spacious, lush, and with adequate variation in terrain (including water). Year-round access provides the bears with seasonal climate variation and enrichment. What’s the point of having rarities if you can’t house them well? This was what cost Plzen and sometimes others matches in the European Cup. Aside from that, there are other notable exhibits at each zoo, of course. Minnesota’s Amur tiger and leopard exhibits are great, but can they compare with Bronx’s trio of tiger exhibits (with breeding programs for two subspecies) and numerous snow leopard exhibits (with over 10 cats in a breeding program)? Bronx’s snow leopard exhibits (Himalayan Highlands) is unique in multiple ways. They’ve got three snow leopard exhibits, which is three more than Minnesota has. But what is remarkable is that they are able to tell the snow leopards’ story with these exhibits. Ever wondered what a snow leopard’s diet is? Take a look at the tragopan in between leopard exhibits. Have you wondered what the Bronx Zoo does for conservation efforts? Please, view the leopard rescued from Pakistan in front of you, or its cub in the next exhibit, showing that it has contributed its much needed genetics into the US zoo population. There’s no denying that Minnesota has good exhibits, but Bronx’s better overall quality, strong collection, and conservational efforts seal the deal.
And speaking of the conservation, Bronx and the WCS directly work with all of the large carnivores they keep as well as many they don't in their native habitats. They have very well known and extensive programs for all the big cats, Cheetahs (another larger carnivore that they keep which hasn't been mentioned yet), bears, pinnipeds, and many others. I'm admittedly unsure of what Minnesota's conservation programs are like, but I've never heard of another zoo organization in the US having as huge of an impact on in-situ conservation as well as ex-situ. ~Thylo
If I may (politely!) offer a few counterpoints... I completely agree with this, but the fact that Minnesota's exhibit is better than Bronx's IMO, along with the fact that Minnesota has two good bear exhibits compared to only one at Bronx, means that Minnesota easily wins that subcategory. I see how this comparison makes sense, but personally I think that species > subspecies and critically endangered > not threatened/not evaluated, so Minnesota still wins that comparison. Also just out of curiosity, what are the other two holders? Are they both in Hawaii? I unfortunately wasn't able to follow the European Cup regularly, but this argument falls a little flat for me. There are benefits to having rare, unique, or interesting species, even if they are housed in functional exhibits that are not purposely designed for them. In this situation, the seals replaced dolphins, an animal with different husbandry needs - hence the uninspiring exhibit design. I think the species swap was a positive one, and I think the fact that Minnesota chose to utilize functional existing space rather than wasting money on a new enclosure is commendable and resourceful. The contributions to breeding programs, and @ThylacineAlive's case for the WCS conservation track record, are the most convincing arguments in favor of Bronx that I've heard. I'm almost swayed, but since Minnesota is currently getting trounced I don't feel any urgency to make the switch.
Having visited the Bronx yesterday, I feel as if the enclosures are fresh in my mind. Oh, and apologies if I make any grammatical errors on this post, I’m typing this on my phone at a New York airport. The California Sea Lion exhibit at the Bronx is fine, nothing great, but nothing bad. It does deserve points for its historical significance. The Lion exhibit was very good in my opinion, although it could have been a tad larger. The illusion with this exhibit and the foreground savanna with Nyala is great as well. Tiger Mountain is a fantastic exhibit, definitely the best I’ve seen (Minnesota’s also looks good). Large area, luscious green grass, underwater viewing, this exhibit has it all. Himalayan Highlands, which contains Snow Leopards is another solid big cat exhibit. The exhibits weren’t as large as I expected them too be, but the vegetation and amount of hiding spots make it very good. One question, are there still Leopards in JungleWorld? I didn’t see any, and I heard somewhere that they were replaced. Bronx is lucky, as their terrible Polar Bear exhibit could’ve been their Achilles heel, but it sits uninhabited at the moment. The Brown Bear exhibit is old-fashioned yes, but it’s quite large, and shouldn’t be used against the zoo. There are a few other large carnivores scattered across the zoo. The African Wild Dog exhibit is tremendous, easily the best I have seen. Hyenas have a similar exhibit to the Dogs, which is a very good thing. Overall, for the moment I’m parking my vote with the Bronx Zoo. All the zoos exhibits are at least average in quality, and Minnesota just doesn’t pop out to me in the way Bronx does. Interesting thread though.
Yes they utilized an existing space for a very rare and endangered species, but is that really the most important thing if that space does not meet said species' needs. Look at this photo of the seal enclosure. Hawaiian Monk Seals are a species that spend a lot of their time sunbathing on land, meanwhile this enclosure offers very little land space for them and no access to uninhibited natural sunlight. Yes the pool is more than sufficient, but that's only part of what these animals need. Not to mention the zoo received, what, five seals? It's like a zoo importing several Sumatran Rhinos, but then putting them in a multi-acre enclosure that was previously for a Caprine, with much of the exhibit space taken up by rock climbing structures and hills. Yes it's great they are representing this highly endangered and underrepresented species, but their enclosure leaves a lot to be desired. And how come the quality of the enclosure matters over the rarity of the taxa in terms of the Brown Bears, but matters not with the seals? ~Thylo
Oh, I agree completely that in bears Minnesota wins. I simply was trying to help people recognize that the gap wasn’t quite as drastic as some were indicating it was. While I feel the rarity of a species in the wild can normally have impact on such a comparison, in this instance I feel it’s a moot point considering neither is in a breeding program or ever will be, as they’re rescued individuals. The other two permanent holders are Sealife Park Hawaii and the Waikiki Aquarium. The Marine Mammal Center also runs a rehabilitation center on the island, so there are usually some animals there temporarily. I do agree that the swap was beneficial, but for the zoo rather than the seals. They previously lived outdoors in Texas, with at least a more natural exhibit. There were several options that Minnesota was pondering I felt would’ve worked out better in terms of exhibitry.
This is good news then, as over the last few months several friends who’ve visited and myself have never seen the leopards. I saw construction being done on one recent visit. It seems that Bronx’s two most crippling carnivore enclosures (polar bear and leopard) may finally have been removed.
An excellent match-up as the Bronx Zoo has Tiger Mountain and Himalayan Highlands (Snow Leopards) and both are supremely excellent exhibit complexes, plus the African Lion predator-prey habitat in the 1941 African Plains area holds up well. African Wild Dog, Spotted Hyena and California Sea Lion exhibits are all solid. I have visited Bronx Zoo once, in 2008. However, Minnesota Zoo has what I consider to be the best tiger complex I've ever had the pleasure to visit. Russia's Grizzly Coast has superb habitats for Brown Bears and Amur Leopards, plus nearby there are Dholes and that species is rarely exhibited in North American zoos. The Minnesota Trail set of exhibits has American Black Bear, Cougar, Gray Wolf and Coyote. Add in Hawaiian Monk Seals and my vote goes towards Minnesota! I have visited Minnesota Zoo twice, in 2008 and 2014.
The lynx, otter, and Mustelids don't count, though, as they're not large carnivores.. If we wanted to include smaller carnivores Bronx has a much more choice selection of those ~Thylo
The zoo never keeps more than 2 seals on exhibit at a time. I have never visited Bronx, and from what I have seen, the zoo seems great. The large carnivores are kept in fantastic exhibits. However, Minnesota has a collection made up of more rare animals. Dholes and Hawaiian Monk Seals are a treat to see, and pure Coyotes may not be rare now, but I think this may become something rare to see in the near future. I could say the same thing about Minnesota. In fact, I would say the only "average" exhibit is the seals (you know, despite the fact we have barley anything to compare it to ), and that exhibit is not as bad as it seems from the pictures. All other large carnivores in the zoo are fantastic, and the fact that Wild Turkeys roam the Minnesota Zoo adds some large carnivore fun! (Before you think I am joking, I saw a turkey fly in with the Dholes and get eaten. ) My vote goes to Minnesota.
I did not have that level of knowledge in monk seal biology. You may well be right, although without information on how the exhibit design is impacting the seal's quality of life it's hard to gauge the overall effect. I agree it's not better than adequate and possibly is not even that, but the presence of the species is still significant for me as it stands. I see your point. I wasn't really thinking along those terms. For the bears I was making a direct comparison of the two enclosures, which I wasn't doing for the monk seals (although I did take the sea lion exhibit at Bronx into account generally). Additionally, for rarity of taxa I stand by my personal designation of Hawaiian Monk Seal > Sitka Brown Bear, which others can choose to adopt or dismiss... so this may also have led to that seeming double standard. Good to hear! Alright, I've been swayed to switch. Hopefully @ThylacineAlive forgives me for doubting the superiority of his home turf
Ahh, but I would also say that the only average exhibit at the Bronx is the Pinniped exhibit. Yes the Monk Seals are a much nicer species than California Sea Lions, but I think that Bronx's exhibit is aesthetically better and has more historical significance. So when comparing these two exhibits it all comes down to your person preference, do you enjoy seeing rare species, or do you enjoy the historical aspects of zoos?
Not to mention the zoo both breeds the sea lions and regularly takes in orphaned/rescued animals. ~Thylo
