From my experience (having been to 7 or 8 zoos in the US only) there has been one major difference in exhibits in the past which has slowly been narrowing down in recent years. Already 20 years and more ago the zoos I visited in NA had very naturalistic trails themed around specific animals (e.g. tiger jungle, gorilla forest,...) whereas European zoos were mainly structured geographically or by animal family with significantly less vegetations (partly for sure driven by different climate).
I think that is because European animals generally just look like smaller, more underwhelming copies of the North American ones When we say 'America' do we mean the USA, do we mean North America or do we mean South American and North America?
Interesting topic ! About the food, I think that it's barely impossible to generalize. A lot of zoos have both junk food and self-restaurants/restaurants. To be honest, I've never seen an extra charge for a zoo map in Europe. I may have been to several countries in Europe, but never paid for a map. A bit ashamed about our policy about smokers. I've worked on a french zoo where people were throwing cigarettes all over the alleys, and in walkthrough exhibits ... I'm glad american zoos have banned smoking ! A big generalization we could make : zoo quality (in terms of exhibits, food, collection) is decreasing to south. This trend is linked to the big differences in our cultures. A point that has not been noticed yet in the topic : sponsorship/philantropy. Americans institutions (zoos, museums) as well as British ones, receive more donations than French ones for example.
Yes indeed - the concept of sponsors giving their names to animal exhibits is very rare over here. Buildings named after people in zoos are usually honorary. I can only think of one major UK animal exhibit that I know was funded by a specific donation from one major external donor - Spirit of the Jaguar at Chester, by Jaguar Cars. They did get their logo on the building for 10 years (now removed) and a couple of publicity stunts with cars but it wasn't named 'Jaguar Cars'-anything (though of course the word 'Jaguar' was in there!).
But don't forget Mappin Terraces, Cotton Terraces, Clore Pavilion and Sobell Pavilions at London Zoo all named after people who financed the building.
"smaller" as in less obese than their American cousins? Fat mountain lion at the Moonridge Zoo, Big Bear
I've only been to half a dozen US zoos but they're seemed to be a greater degree of variation in quality within a zoo. Enclosures costing tens of millions next to corn crib cages. European zoos seem more uniform in quality with in a zoo.
In the USA, I was thinking about Denver and its Toyota sponsorship for asian elephants. But there may be a lot more examples. Not agree at all. A few europeans zoos have still old enclosures/pavillons in use that are outdated, and some park are still building not suitable enclosures next to good ones. The heterogeneity in enclosures quality is almost in every zoos. But, I have the feeling that americans zoos have started to build "million dollars complex" earlier.
As mentionned by Tim May or Maguari, there are several examples in UK. I'm still trying to search for french zoos but I can't find any one. And in general, donations are quite limited in France.
They only mentioned examples in two zoos - all of which were historic and some very old. I'm not sure that British zoos can be fairly included in the same sentence as American ones....
I also believe that donations are much more common in NA compared to Europe - especially by companies naming whole areas/buildings accordingly. However also in Europe I'm aware of at least some prominent examples - especially in Switzerland: Basel - they regularly get significant donations and also the big oceanium that was ultimately stopped by public voting should have been 100% financed by donations (out of 100m Swiss Francs required 57m were already confirmed prior to the voting) Zürich - all major expansion projects at the zoo (e.g. Masoala, Kaeng Kachan, Lewa) were/are fully financed via donations.
Certainly there are outdated enclosures in Europe but I don't think the gap between the best and worst in any one particular zoo is as great in Europe as in the US, but as I say, my experience of American zoos is very limited.
You may be right, it can be a personnal impression ! I forget about the age dimension. Have you an idea about the situation for museums ? Ned : me neither, I haven't been in many americans zoos, but from what I've seen in Europe, we can't say that there is an uniformity. Pairi Daiza have a few great enclosures, but also held clouded leopard in a small overexposed place. Beauval have a big plain for indian rhinoceros, but keep holding primates in small round-shape cages. I have the feeling that this gap is the same in every country, but thankfully it depends on the zoo.
That isn’t actually true, they do exist in Europe (thankfully). You appear to be dismissive of the concept but be assured they can have an absolutely vital role in preventing suicide and self-harm. In many cases they are actual life savers.
When I worked in a grocery store for a good few years, many people would bring in dogs without any service vests. Most were very obviously people's pets, but we were told we legally could not ask for prove that the animal was a service dog and could not legally tell them to remove the animal from the building so long as they insisted it was a service animal. I'm not sure if this applies nationwide and for all businesses/institutions, but at my college there are a couple of girls who carry their small dogs around with them claiming they are service animals and not one has a vest. It was quite the culture shock for me when I landed in Madrid and found people smoking inside the airport! As someone whose lungs get irritated by smoke quite easily, I've found walking through many parts of Europe rather frustrating. I don't think it's unreasonable at all considering, as you said, the zoo is free. I just think of it as the admission being $5 personally. It's not as though they try and force you to buy one either, you have to specifically ask for a map at a service desk near the gate (or at least that's how it worked in 2012). I can't say that I've seen Europe excel in this area either. I've not been to Innsbruck or Nockalm, but I've seen some great outdoor native herp displays at zoos like Prague and even Plzen, but the vast, vast majority of European zoos I've been to have more or less the same standard of exhibitry for their herps as US zoos do. More and more major zoos are committing to new multi-million dollar houses with superb exhibitry standards as well. I can't really say I've seen reptile houses in Europe that even come close to the top 10 I've seen in the US, except for Wroclaw of course. Species-wise, the US simply dominates Europe, especially when it comes to venomous species I'm afraid. At least in public institutions anyway, the private sector can be an entirely different beast. Surely this is simply the natural result of certain zoos being located in certain countries/regions are more likely to have species from said areas that zoos outside of those areas are unlikely to have. Most of the examples you gave are species only kept in and in immediate proximity to their native range. Black-Footed Ferrets and to an extent Pronghorn can be found pretty much anywhere in the US, although the Peninsula Pronghorn is restricted to the Southwest. Coyotes pretty much only come from the rescue of wild-born animals and therefore the zoos that keep them are the zoos that have wild Coyotes in-state. This becomes even more apparent when one visits a Northeast zoo and starts finding coywolves instead of Coyotes. Fishers are only found in a very small handful of zoos all within their natural range, same goes for the jackrabbit and blind salamander. I've never seen or heard of the giant salamander being in zoos, but if they are it'll likely be the same story. I would imagine that similar patterns can be seen with native European species as well. I can't say any US zoos have known pedigree Red Deer anywhere. Certainly no US zoos keep Eurasian or Iberian Wolves just as no European zoos keep Red or Mexican Wolves. As for exotic species being relatively commonplace in US zoos but not European, this is true. That also goes both ways, though. I'd even argue that, mammal-wise, there are far more exotic species kept in European zoos that are absent in US zoos than the other way around. Many of our newer imports of mammal species even come from Europe (ie. Mohol Bushbaby, Northern Luzon Giant Cloud Rat, Indian Sloth Bear, European Wolverine, etc.). This is cemented, for me, by the fact that @Hvedekorn is absolutely correct in saying that North American species are more common in European zoos than vice versa. Sometimes they're even more common in Europe than in North America. Wood Bison, Woodland Caribou, Dall Sheep, Rocky Mountain Goat, Tule Elk, and American Mink are all examples of North American mammals which are extremely rare, if not absent from US zoos yet are found in European zoos at varying degrees of rarity. The only European native mammal I can think of which is currently in the US is Wisent, but that's only kept at one or two places nowadays. All other examples I can think of are for birds and herps, but even then there are not many examples. There are so many North American natives not found in American zoos that are found in Europe that it's become a running joke between myself and a few of my European ZooChatter friends that I keep getting American lifers in Europe instead of in America. I think the point being made is that many more US zoos tend to prioritize theming of exhibits more than European zoos do (certainly more than UK zoos at the very least). Of course, there are examples of extreme theming in Europe as there are examples of extreme simple/basic exhibitry in America, but I would say the latter is far more common in Europe while the former is far more common in the States. Personally I generally prefer the latter, simply because it allows for more space to be dedicated to the animals and, somewhat ironically, often leads to more naturalistic displays. Did you visit San Diego then? That's the only example of this I can think of off the top of my head. Which other US zoos did you visit? In my travels, the largest variation in exhibit quality I have seen is at Wroclaw. There is a very clear line between the old zoo and new zoo, which the latter being a fairly excellent institution and the former slowly improving, but still have many, many, many outdated areas and problems. They probably have one of the worst elephant houses I've ever seen, due to the fact that it was built in the 1800's and rarely touched since then. ~Thylo
Where is the Wisent kept? As for other European mammals kept in American zoos, Fallow Deer are common and Red Deer are present in a few collections.
I've yet to see an emotional support peacock in Europe... I acknowledge that animals can have a positive therapeutical effect on people. What I critique is that some people (and this appears to be more common in the USA) use this as an excuse to make money out of the respective animal (with little concern for its welfare), get special treatment and / or to make their mark on the costs of others, including the animal.
The idea of sponsorship is interesting. In the modern age it would be inconceivable for any US zoo to build a major new exhibit and not seek both individual and corporate sponsorship (eg donations). There is also (here in USA) a dramatic increase in the last few years of extra paid experiences to raise money. Giraffe feeding is the most common and has swept through the American zoo scene at a blistering rate. But there are also a lot more behind-the-scenes tours for extra money. Most zoos do this but San Diego has taken it to a whole other level. Right at the entrance to both parks is a counter with a wide array of upcharge tours that you can book right then as you are about to enter the zoo.
