ZooChat Cup S2 Match #10: Atlanta vs San Diego Zoo (1)

Conservation is the justification for the existence of AZA zoos. It is the driving point behind their breeding programs, their massive (3% budget recommended) spending on field work and similar initiatives, and the importation of new species into captivity. It is the justification behind the large collection @sooty mangabey desires to view at both San Diego, and Atlanta, too, with about 75 herps- not so far behind the giant's less than 100.

Correct. But you'd think that the reason that zoos exist today might have just a bit of an impact on some people's votes.

Without a greater purpose to having these animals in captivity, is there a reason to having them in the first place? The notion that conservation should have no hold in this competition is a ridiculous one. Without conservation, collections in zoos would be just that: a collector's game. Who can get the rarest species? Who has the most venomous one? What would that do for the world?

Perhaps that's just it. Are either of you really giving Atlanta a chance, or are you and @sooty mangabey just voting your favorite? As I have been trying to express much of this competition, there is far more to a zoo than its collection.

What examples of this can you provide? I own guidebooks to 4 AZA institutions and all of them highlight conservation efforts at any point possible. Even several zoo maps list conservation efforts and during programs such as educational shows or keeper talks, I have seen many a visitor become enlightened about zoos' conservation efforts, and instantly become amazed when they realize how much more a zoo does than show an animal to a visitor.

Do you? I thought you just wrote a post explaining why it should have no effect on our perception of zoos...

Averages have outliers. In 2016, Zoo Atlanta spent 10% of its budget on conservation: over $2,000,000. In addition, they now participate in a "quarters for conservation" program in which visitors can choose to donate $.25 to a particular project, one of which is Panamanian golden frog conservation.

 

@jayjds2 - this is just a piece of fun, a parlour game to allow us to discuss zoos. Your posts here about the relative merits of Atlanta and San Diego have been really interesting, and while I don’t share your perspective, I wholly respect it and very much enjoy your espousal of it.

But please, don’t tell me how I should be thinking. I’m deeply cynical about the conservational role of many zoos, and absolutely don’t share the view that this role is “the reason why zoos exist today”.

Just because you “try to express” something doesn’t mean that all will - or should - agree with you. But you might make others reconsider their own views, a little, especially if you accept that people *will* see things differently to you - and that their doing so is a Good Thing.

 

@jayjds2 I'm not going to answer all of your points one-by-one but I do feel as if you are being a bit relentless and taking the fun out of the game. Not everyone needs to agree with your opinion and if your choice (Zoo Atlanta) 'loses' this round then it is not the end of the world, right? You certainly have many great points but you are abrasive in some of your comments. All of us on ZooChat have similar passions and interests and so let's be supportive of each other.

When I made the statement that "many zoo guidebooks don't even list conservation programs" I was not talking about guidebooks produced by zoos, although I can easily understand why you would think that as my declaration was not very clear. I have at least 175 guidebooks to zoos and you are correct in thinking that ALL of them are likely to have a lot of information about conservation programs. What I actually meant by my comment were zoo guidebooks that I've listed below and I already own all of them. Some of the books do speak of conservation but there are others that scarcely even mention the word and that is probably due in part to the audience that the authors are aiming for and also their publication date. When my co-author (Tim Brown - he has visited almost 800 different zoos) and myself (Scott Richardson - 400+ zoos after this summer) publish The Top 100 Zoos & Aquariums of the USA in 2019 we are committed to providing a brief list of some of the conservation programs of each of the 100 zoos/aquariums in our book. In fact, the rough draft has already been completed and we are about 50% of the way through the editing phase. Without going through my zoo library, I would hazard a guess that none of the books below have a list of conservation programs at each zoological facility.

American Zoo Guides:

Zoos of the Southwest (2014 - Fred Hood) - Features reviews of 17 zoos with important information listed at the front of each review and great photographs that accompany the long, detailed, often 14-page reviews.

America's Best Zoos (2008 - Allen W. Nyhuis & Jon Wassner) - Features reviews of "America's 60 best zoos" plus small paragraph reviews of an additional 37 reviews. There are 3-5 pages for each major review and black & white photos.

Zoo: Profiles of 102 Zoos, Aquariums, and Wildlife Parks in the United States (1994 - Anthony D. Marshall) - Features reviews of 102 facilities, with most zoos receiving 2 pages each. Zero photos.

The Zoo Book: A Guide to America's Best (1994 - Allen W. Nyhuis) - Features reviews of "the top 53 U.S. zoos" with each facility receiving on average 3 pages in the book. There are loads of other zoos listed as well, and the book has black & white photos.

A Guide to American Zoos & Aquariums (1993 - Darcy & Robert Folzenlogen) - Features reviews of 173 facilities, although they all get only two pages or less.

Aquariums: Windows to Nature (1993 - Leighton Taylor) - The first 120 pages of this large, glossy, hard-cover book is essentially an overall look at aquariums in general, with many references to specific aquaria across the globe. The last 40 pages acts as a directory for at least 200 aquariums, featuring short reviews of many North American facilities. Loads of colourful photos.

Where the Animals Are: A Guide to the Best Zoos, Aquariums, and Wildlife Sanctuaries in North America (1992 - Tim O'Brien) - Features reviews of more than 250 zoos and aquariums and fairly comprehensive. However, most reviews are a single page and contain one paragraph description and then basic facts about each facility. Zero photos but the occasional cartoon drawing.

American Zoos (1992 - Steve Dale) - Featuring reviews of 18 of the best U.S. zoos, this large coffee table book has many photos.

 

Conservation can be a big part of Zoos, but I disagree that it's the sole and main purpose. Education is also a major facet, and it's not educating if there's no animals.

Also, you'd be kidding yourself if you ignore the business aspect. Like it or not, zoos have to make a profit, or (if the owners benevolent) at least get close to breaking even. Zoos won't make money without exotic animals.

I know this isn't really relavent to the primary conversation, but I just took issue to conservation being called the reason zoos exist. If that was the case, zoos would only present local species, it wouldn't make sense to import anything else then.

 

Wow! Didn’t know this was happening. Can’t wait!

 

Focusing highly on conservation does not limit a zoo to a low number of species, and only provides better education. On my visit to San Diego I saw little to nothing about the species (besides basic sign information) in the reptile walk, and left with little to no knowledge about them. I don't see a point in education by jamming as many miscellaneous species on exhibit as possible if all it does is overwhelm visitors. Zoo Atlanta brings that education via conservation significantly more effectively than San Diego does.

I don't see a business benefit in paying heavy expenses just to have extremely rare species be held off exhibit and not breed.

There are a variety of reasons this is not the case. Assurance populations for one, more funding for another. We can thank Zoo Atlanta's efforts for many frogs species we see in captivity today, as jay mentioned.

I believe one of the things which separates modern zoos from zoos of the 1930s is that they focus much more on how they can benefit the wild world than how many species they can collect. Many zoo collections used to be accumulations of as many species as possible, not to breed the species, not to benefit the species, not to educate the public, but to add another number to their list. Sure that allows us zoo nerds to check them off our lists and move on, but is that really worth it? I think we should look to more than just collection quantity of rare species here, but collection quality of rare species (and I don't mean who has the rarer species). As I mentioned above, San Diego does not do much for the rare species in their collection, whereas almost every species in Atlanta's is there to actively benefit the species or the species' natural habitat.

 

Of course I agree that there will be disagreement. But the fact that the transformation to conservation efforts is what has created the modern zoo (and to me, it is that, a fact) is not an opinion. Perhaps it’s the American viewpoint, but our zoos preach conservation, and I see no reason that they shouldn’t. So please, convince me otherwise. Your argument thus far has been nullifying my viewpoints, rather than explaining yours. Why are you disillusioned with conservation?

While you may think I’m being extreme in my viewpoints and arguments, the point of a competition is to win.

I believe your latter point his the nail right on the head.

Over half of the books are from 1994 or older. A lot changed in 24 years. Then, the decline of amphibians worldwide had just begun. The Lord Howe Island stock insect was thought to be extinct. A living Saola had never been seen by scientists. The world had about two billion less people than it does now. Each of these has a vastly different impact on conservation, changing conservation science as we know it, and thus zoos’ roles in it, since the books were written.

@d1am0ndback and I share similar views about this. There may be no education with no animals, but there are no animals with no conservation and that’s the more dire matter. Of course a zoo has to make money to run; I never suggested this wasn’t the case. And it is true that exotic species bring in more money, and I never suggested they shouldn’t be kept.

 

Or perhaps to provide a framework for participation? Maybe even for fun?

 

Well, I can’t speak for everyone, but I am having a considerable amount of fun exploring the pros and cons of several American zoos, most of which I have visited, and learning even more about those that I haven’t. This competition has been a great way to allow multiple forum members to increase their knowledge about zoos.

 

@d1am0ndback and @jayjds2

Before I consider my response, maybe this could try to clean up your argument in my head

What do you mean by conservation, are u talking about sustaining/growing total population numbers or replenishing populations in the wild, because to me those are two things that are achieved in different ways.

 

Voted for San Diego but not going to write an explanation of why I chose it over Atlanta... after reading this thread I feel if I do I'm going to get tackled and have all my points picked apart... I have nothing against friendly debate in attempt to sway votes, and reading the information on the zoos in the various cups has been interesting. But I feel this one has gotten rather heated, and whether my points are accepted or argued with me, my reasoning is still my personal opinion, and someone picking my reasons apart because they see it differently will not make me want to change my opinion. So unless the debate calms down, I will not be posting my reasoning. You could sway me in favor of Atlanta by giving me stats or other information compared to my reasoning, but not by attacking and picking apart my reasons for voting San Diego.

 

I am something of an expert on the point of this competition, and you seem to have missed it.

 

I feel this thread has lost its way a bit and there have been some unnecessarily aggressive posts from both sides of the debate here.

All I'm going to say for now (possibly for the remainder of this thread) is that every AZA zoo in the United States uses conservation in their marketing and does, in fact, state conservation as being the reason the modern zoo exists. There's no reason why that'd suggest they shouldn't have an exotic collection (if anything, it supports keeping exotic species), or a large collection that includes non-endangered species. Nor does it suggest that zoos can't maintain a healthy business by putting a focus on conservation. Jay and others have given stats showing that Atlanta spends significantly more on conservation than the average zoo (10% instead of 2%, and I think some people are really undermining just how much money "only" 2% of a zoo's annual budget is) and has done significantly more for herps in captivity than San Diego has.

I was genuinely not sure who to vote for at first because, in any other category, I think San Diego wins. But this is not every other category, and the arguments and facts given have been more than enough to show me that Atlanta is far superior here. Others may disagree, but to be honest no one's really given a reason as to why. Maybe I've missed them, but every argument I've seen here either gives no argument whatsoever or states that San Diego is superior because conservation shouldn't be a factor (even if you take that out Atlanta still does more than San Diego), the zoo has a slightly higher species count (there has been zero evidence to suggest the zoo has 200 species, and even so less than 100 are on-exhibit at any given time), or that its San Diego and San Diego deserves to win because it's San Diego. The middle argument is the only one that holds any ground for me, but even then I feel as though Atlanta would win if it were against almost any other zoo. It's been shown that over half of the species San Diego displays (which again is less than ~30 more than Atlanta) are kept in average or below average enclosures with almost no actual educational aspects put into their signage or exhibitry. The outdoor enclosures are the exception, but those make up the minority here. Meanwhile all of Atlanta's enclosures are of above average quality and have exceptional educational value. Even with less species than San Diego, this means Atlanta has more solid enclosures than San Diego does. In past rounds where a zoo has had more species but less solid enclosures than its competitor, several of those voting for San Diego here would vote for the competitor there. If you feel San Diego deserves the win, fine, but explain why beyond the zoo keeping more species because if that wasn't good enough in past rounds, it shouldn't be good enough here.

Going back to the conservation factor, when it was Brookfield v Miami, pangolins were a huge part of the debate. The discussion of pangolin conservation swayed people in both directions. Those arguing in favor of Brookfield stated that Brookfield should win because they were helping set-up a captive assurance population for pangolins and helping develop better husbandry techniques for them. As stated many times, Atlanta has done this, or at least attempted to, for many species of extremely endangered (some so endangered they've since gone Extinct in the Wild or Extinct altogether) reptiles and amphibians and made large breakthroughs in developing new, modern husbandry techniques. There has been absolutely nothing presented thus far showing that San Diego has done anything close to that (remember the Cyclura breeding center does not count as it's not run by the zoo). So I must seriously ask, how come with pangolins it's significant enough to merit a win, but when it's herps it's not even worth considering for many people here?

Obviously San Diego is an excellent zoo and one of the very best for reptiles (amphibians not so much). The outdoor reptile enclosures are arguably the best in the nation and of course I know they play their role in captive breeding programs and with the keeping of endangered species. However, for me there has been far beyond enough evidence shown that Atlanta is the clear winner here, even when taking in-situ conservation out of the equation. Meanwhile, no one has given a real argument as to why San Diego should win. @snowleopard has come the closest, but many of his points have been addressed in Atlanta's favor. On the topic of addressing other's points I don't accept refusing to share one's reasoning for fear that other people will pick them apart. That's how debating works. This entire last page has been picking apart Jay's last major post (admittedly for things other than the main debate) and I invite anyhow to please pick my arguments apart here and elsewhere on this forum. That is how we grow, that is how we learn, that is how we sway others. There is nothing functional or productive- and if anything it's hypocritical considering what everyone's been saying to Jay about individual opinion- about refusing to share your viewpoints in case someone disagrees with you and wants to point out their problems with your argument.

Herps was a good match-up here, and the only one imo where San Diego wasn't the clear winner. It looks like San Diego will win, but it honestly does appear to me that it's going to win simply due to the zoo's overall reputation as oppose to actually being better than Atlanta. I don't want to see San Diego lose out in the first round, it's a lot better of a zoo than that, but if I'm going to be completely honest and fair here, I have to vote Atlanta due to all the evidence showing it's superior and the lack of evidence presented showing San Diego is.

~Thylo

 

It was nice to wake up this morning and see a number of reasonable, balanced responses. San Diego is going to surely win and deservedly so, but I definitely would love to make my way back to Atlanta as the new Reptile House does appear to genuinely be excellent. I'm sure that I would love it and of course Georgia Aquarium has a million-gallon predator tank opening in 2020 and so a return to Atlanta is a MUST for any serious zoo enthusiast. My dream would be to fly from Vancouver to Atlanta, see the two major zoological attractions, then rent a vehicle and drive down through 'the land of 100 zoos'...Florida. We'll see if that can happen one day.

I know that my very early comment about San Diego Zoo having approximately 200 reptile/amphibian species raised a number of eyebrows but I'm relieved to have found out that my estimate was actually pretty darn close. For those that don't know, the International Zoo Yearbook is published annually and the latest issue costs $320 Canadian and so that is why I have never purchased a copy. Each year there are many articles on zoo-related matters and then an enormous, updated reference section with tons of valuable information about hundreds of zoos and aquariums across the globe. Anyway, my friend (Tim Brown) managed to procure the information that I was looking for and he confirmed that as of the latest issue San Diego Zoo was listed as having 167 reptile species and 23 amphibian species and therefore a grand total of 190 species. I knew that my information was correct. Whether lots are off-show, breeding or non-breeding, of conservation value, etc., I have no idea, but at least I have proof to back up my earlier claim and that is a very impressive number of reptiles/amphibians.

 

I agree that the signage is not as good as it should be (especially in the Reptile House), but what enclosures are below average? The reptile house exhibits are of average quality, the Reptile Walk has fantastic exhibits, and the other enclosures scattered around the zoo are quite nice. Are you referring to the enclosures behind the scenes?

Who has done this? Everyone who has commented on why San Diego should win has given their reasons, and none of them are even remotely close to what you're saying (I can't speak for the people who didn't comment). Making wild and completely untrue accusations is not going to convince anyone to change their vote to Atlanta.

 

But why? I still have not seen any reasons listed aside from the high species count, something which you yourself have stated in other rounds is not as important as exhibit quality, something which Atlanta has a higher standard of. I'm not trying to attack anyone, I'm just legitimately curious as to reasons why other than species count and the outdoor enclosures, something which has been overshadowed by arguments for Atlanta.

Fair enough then, though I still think it should be noted that around half of these species are completely off-display, especially their amphibians. Still extremely impressive. Also does the IZY have a full species count for Atlanta? I want to make sure we're not just counting everything San Diego has vs just what Atlanta has on-show.

As @jayjds2 has pointed out, most of the indoor enclosures along Reptile Walk are small for their inhabitants, as are the enclosures by the Pygmy Hippo (crocodile excluded).

As you said there are many people who have not given any reasoning behind their votes, and some who flat out refuse to give them. As I noted earlier there are people here who stated their values for voting one zoo over the other in other rounds, but here are going completely against those values for San Diego, undoubtedly the most popular zoo amongst the American majority (at least vocal majority). The arguments for Atlanta have repeatedly won other zoos matches, yet here it's losing to arguments that alone have been rejected by the very members making them. @sooty mangabey, along with others I believe, has stated he thinks the zoo is perfect on the main thread for this cup but did not give any explanation when asked why, nor has he answered Jay when he's asked here. To me it just appears that San Diego is getting votes because it's the class favorite. I should have made it more clear that that's been my interpretation based on the events of this match and the cup as a whole. Maybe San Diego does deserve the win, it's really not my call alone to make, but the arguments made for both zoos don't match up with the number of people voting for each when compared to past rounds.

Again, as fantastic as San Diego is, I really can't see how just having a large number of species and a handful of fantastic enclosures beats out 70-odd great enclosures and an ex-situ conservation plan that has literally saved certain species from extinction and established entire captive breeding programs, some of which San Diego has jumped on board with. These are not subjective things, they're factual. I want someone, anyone, to explain it to me because I can't wrap my mind around it.

~Thylo[/QUOTE]

 

How very American of us