How BIG should zoos be?

For me, its less the size of the zoo but how well the zoo uses its space. I've been to many excellent small zoos, but the small zoos that are excellent don't have many, if any, large megafauna species.

One thing I find myself constantly explaining to guests is that the animals actually have a lot more room that the public doesn’t get to see that they can retreat to at any time

Zoos should definitely keep innovating with trail systems. Many of the large, charismatic species like tigers are on the brink of extinction and zoos have aided in their conservation.

It’s quite refreshing to see some honest criticisms of zoos that aren’t basically just “abolish all zoos.” Zoos can absolutely work, and they can be very important and helpful in conservation efforts and for the public knowledge, too. Great video overall!

At a zoo here, there were two equally sized enclosures. In one were multiple young male lions. They roared, lazed around, played with each other, etc. They looked reasonably happy, though I'm obviously not an expert on them. In the other was a single tiger. The tiger's fur was ruffled, head down, and she paced nonstop up and down the fenceline. Her distress was quite clear to anyone looking. Though she had an enclosure as big as the lions and didn't need to share it, it was very lacking in foliage or places to hide, and almost every angle of the enclosure was visible to people.

I personally think that zoos should continue to develop further. I know there are people who will say otherwise, but I say this because many of the species that struggle in captivity are often the ones who are the most endangered. Elephants, tigers, gorillas, etc. are examples of species that are endangered, some critically endangered, that tend to struggle in captivity. The problem lies in the future of the wild populations. If the wild populations of these species continue to decline or not change from where they are now, then keeping captive populations of them is an unfortunate necessity. That’s why I say it’s important for captive faculties to keep developing. Additionally, there are animals that are not endangered, but may be rescues. Not all rescue animals can be released back into the wild and sanctuaries can’t always take them in. Many polar bears, for example, were rescued from the wild either because they were orphaned or were problem bears that were saved from being euthanized. They’re another example of an animals that tends to struggle in captivity. Finally, there’s the issue of balancing the issue of animal welfare vs. guest experience. What I mean by that is that many of the animals that guests come to see in zoos are not endangered. Grizzly bears, warthogs, and red kangaroos are not endangered, but they’re very popular and they help draw in guests. Yes there are plenty of crowd drawing endangered species, but the problem is that having a zoo full of only endangered species leads to a surprising lack of animal diversity. For example, most people don’t know what a Palila, Bear Cuscus, or Père David’s Deer, but do know what elephants, tigers, annd gorillas are. Many endangered species are generally unknown to the public and because of that, there’s the problem that filling a zoo with only endangered species, while not a bad idea, is not going to be as successful as one that has both endangered and non-endangered species. While it sounds greedy, zoos need money and that money goes towards keeping the zoo functioning, paying the staff, and caring for the animals. Having a wide variety of animals brings in more guests who bring in more money. Ultimately, it’s a delicate and difficult balance that’s not always going to work for everyone. It’s just best to keep making strides in advancements of zoos and other captive facilities until they’re no longer needed (which is unlikely to happen).

It’s not just the size of the enclosure, but also what’s in it, how is it planted, is it mixed species. Understanding the animal in the wild and the ability to replicate. Prevailing climate in a zoo might determine species kept. Also, what is outside of the enclosure for sensory stimuli.

Building enclosures is truly an art and some people are better at it than others. A lot of zoos simply lack the resources to develop and construct a robust and enriching environment. That said, in 2024 there's almost no excuse for subpar enclosures. Knowledge is ubiquitous, materials of all kinds available, huge inventories of plant and fungus material...

Choosing which species a zoo houses is also the question of "why". If a zoo is participating in captive breeding or research, they need to keep those particular animals, and design enclosures with that in mind. But then, visitors bring money that is needed to run the zoo and those programs, so they need charismatic animals to draw in visitors.

Snakes are the easiest example of quality over quantity.You could give a snake a massive enclosure but if it has no cover they will be stressed,but give it a medium sized enclosure with substrate to burrow in and things to climb and hid in they will be set

We should stop expecting every zoo to have the same full range of popular species. A zoo may keep one type of big cat, or one type of ape, but has to invest the space and personnel to develop the best range of habitats, hiding spots, foraging reward programs, whatever is appropriate for the species. They should focus on keeping one species well, develop the expertise, and be honest if it can't be done. We as spectators should encourage them to go this way. One city may have lions, another tigers, one gorillas, another chimpanzees.

I think they should continue to improve because zoos and sanctuaries are a safe guard against complete extinction, where if they do go extinct in the wild, they could still be reintroduced from captive populations.

A zoo in my country announced last year that they will be completely redesigning and expanding their Asian elephant habitat, and one of the key changes will be the introduction of a trail-based habitat like the one described in the video. Indeed, this would give the elephants much more opportunity to roam and travel around the zoo as a group and display more natural behaviours. They will also be adding a second, larger habitat for adult males, so they will be able to stay at the zoo in a bachelor group. They already have a habitat for adult males, but it is currently VERY small and only occupied when they're actively trying to breed the young females (so about once every two years). I'm excited to see what this change will bring to the wellbeing of the elephant herd. Their eldest female and matriarch died last year. She lived in that zoo for over fifty years and saw her habitat change from a small concrete yard to a large sandy plains. She didn't live to see the next big step for elephant wellbeing in zoos, but her children and grandchildren will.

This types of videos really make you think out of the box. I hope many zoo architects and other stakeholders will watch this

8:56/8:58/9:01 - 9:14 Or as Casual Geographic put in layman's terms, animals that are highly intelligent, highly social or travel very long distances will, more often than not, struggle while living in a captive environment.

I’m pleasantly surprised to see a video about zoos that isn’t just “ZOOS BAD ANIMALS WANDER 4 500000 MILES IN THE WILD” and that offers constructive discussion about the topic. Of course, the biggest enclosure you can provide is ideal, but I’ve seen plenty of small zoos that have smaller enclosures and their animals are clearly happy and thriving. How the enclosure is furnished and designed matters just as much as how much space the animal has. A tiger could have a 15 acre enclosure that’s a barren field and it would still be more bored than the one on 4 acres of carefully designed habitat space with climbing and swimming areas. If you ask me though, too many zoos hyperfixate on megafauna that bring in visitors (like big cats, pandas, elephants, giraffes, etc) and neglect smaller species of animals desperately in need of captive research and breeding, like Sumatran striped rabbits or countless other animals with declining populations that we literally can’t even fill out a Wikipedia page for. The only facilities actually bothering to work with and study such ignored species are often dismissed by the big name AZA zoos as being “poor facilities” people shouldn’t support. People forget that zoos are still businesses motivated by money no matter if they have noble intentions.

Really good content. About Elephants: According to a german expert in Modern Zoos Elephants acctually do about the same distance in walking compares to wild Elephants. But I think there is still some development to be done too In general I think the best enrichment can be acchieved by joining different species in one exhibit

As someone in the herping community this is a hot button topic. While I prefer the biggest possible enclosure, a smaller enclosure with enrichment is so much better than a big empty one, but a small empty one is awful.

I lived only few meters away from a forest. I walked my dog there every day for 0,5-4 hours depending on the weather and the time I had. There were 4 major pathways you could take that split into several other trails. I couldn't take my dog the same trail every day or even every other day because she would just sit on the road untill we go back. She would rather stay home than walk the same path so often. But if we walked a different path each day of the week she would eagerly lead the exploration XD

Hey, I am a Butterfly explainer at the American Museum of Natural History. I’d love to see more discussion among the general public about Butterfly vivariums and insectariums. A lot of the time, insects are left out. Sure it seems easy to give butterflies space, but different conditions in lighting, temperature, and foliage different from their native environment can contribute to increased or decreased quality of life.