#zoo accreditation project

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

I was looking into my local zoo and they say they're zaa accredited, that's not the same thing as aza, right? I was curious if zaa was reputable and whether an accreditation from them really means anything

I think a better question, unfortunately, is "does any accreditation mean anything?" Followed closely by "how can a member of the public tell what it means?"

AKA you've poked to one of my giant projects of indeterminate length that I might, hopefully, maybe, get enough of a conclusion on to start submitting for peer review and publication this year.

Now if you've been following the blog for a while, you're probably thinking wait! Accreditations require standards! So to know what an accreditation means, we could just go read what standards they hold facilities to, right?

...and the answer is yes, but, that won't give you the whole picture for a lot of reasons. Many standards are performance standards: they say what has to be achieved, but don't specify how it's done. That means whether the standard is met is up to a significant amount of interpretation. Maybe the standards are in flux/being updated, and you can't guarantee that what you can find publicly is what's currently being used. Most accrediting bodies allow facilities to petition for variances, and there's no information available about what facilities have ones, for what, and why. On top of that, there's always questions about enforcement, oversight, consistency, anonymous reporting options, and of course, the risk of nepotism and/or politics impacting how accrediting decisions are made.

Here's the thing that never gets talked about, but is really important to know: accreditation is branding. Accreditation groups are trade organizations - they are responsible for advocating for the success of the businesses that are members. Being part of specific "accreditations" is like being in a fancy club. Members get certain perks, non-members don't get those perks, there's in-groups and out-groups, except it's all playing out with regards to federal and state level regulation, legislation, government funding, etc. That's why it's so political - it isn't only about guaranteeing a facility's quality. It's about guaranteeing that they're good enough to be part of the club, and will function and act the way the people who run the club want.

So honestly, at this point? All I can confidently say at this point in time is that accreditation by any entity in the zoological or sanctuary world means that X facility aligns with the ethos/zeitgeist of the accrediting body such that they're willing to stake their brand to it. You can read up on accrediting body to get a sense of what that means - if you do, make sure you look at things like the website and comments they make to the media, because there's a lot of information about organization culture and ethos in that than in just the published standards.

Give me like, six months (I hope) and I'd be able to answer your question with a lot more specifics, but I'm still in the nitty-gritty of spreadsheets and I don't want to speak before my analysis is finished.

[lesbiten]

reminder:

seaworld and other marine parks that keep large cetations like orcas: awful

zoos: fine and actually good please give aza accredited zoos your money if you want to

[bonefall]

Don’t know if this is the right place to ask, but could you talk more about zoos? I’ve seen many people say that zoos are inherently exploitative and that we should instead focus on advocating for wildlife preserves, etc., but I’m not sure what to think of that. You seem to know a lot about wildlife protection, so what’s your opinion on this?

There are folks faaaar better than myself to talk about the issues of zoos specifically and I'll try to toss in some sources so you can go and learn more, but let me try and explain my mindset here.

Summary of my opinion on this: BOTH of these things can be poorly managed, and I broadly support both. They should exist in tandem. I am pro-accredited zoo and am extremely sensitive towards misinformation. I also do think the best place for animals to be is in their natural environment, but nature "preserves" aren't inherently perfect. They can also be prone to the capitalist (and colonialist) pressures that less informed people believe they're somehow immune to.

Because of the goal of my project being to make the setting of WC accurate to Northwestern England, my research is based on UK laws, ecology, and conservation programs.

On Zoos

On Nature Reserves

An Aside on Fortress Conservation

On Zoos

The legal definition of a Zoo in the UK (because that is what BB's ecological education is based around), as defined by the Zoo Licensing Act of 1981 (ZLA), is a "place where wild animals are kept for exhibition to the public," excluding circuses and pet shops (which are covered by different laws.)

This applies equally to private, for-profit zoos, as well as zoos run by wildlife charities and conservation organizations. Profit does not define a zoo. If there's a place trying to tell you it's not a zoo but a "sanctuary" or a "wildlife park," but you can still go visit and see captive wild animals, even if it's totally free, it's a marketing trick. Legally that is still a zoo in the UK.

(for fellow Americans; OUR definition is broader, more patchwork because we are 50 little countries in a trenchcoat, and can include collections of animals not displayed to the public.)

That said, there's a HUGE difference between Chester Zoo, run by the North of England Zoological Society, which personally holds the studbooks for maintaining the genetic diversity of 10 endangered species, has 134 captive breeding projects, cultivates 265 threatened plant species, and sends its members as consultants to United Nations conferences on climate change, and Sam Tiddles' Personal Zebra Pit.

Sam Tiddles' Personal Zebra Pit ONLY has to worry about the UK government. There's another standard zoos can hold themselves to if they want to get serious about conservation like Chester Zoo; Accreditation. There are two major zoo organizations in the UK, BIAZA and EAZA.

(Americans may wonder about AZA; that's ours. AZA, EAZA, and BIAZA are all members of the World Association of Aquariums and Zoos, or WAZA, but they are all individual organizations.)

A zoo going for EAZA's "accreditation" has to undergo an entire year of evaluation to make sure they fit the strict standards, and renewal is ongoing. You don't just earn it once. You have to keep your animal welfare up-to-date and in compliance or you will lose it.

The benefit of joining with an accredited org is that it puts the zoo into a huge network of other organizations. They work together for various conservation efforts.

There are DOZENS of species that were prevented from going extinct, and are being reintroduced back to their habitats, because of the work done by zoos. The scimitar-horned oryx, takhi, California condor, the Galapagos tortoise, etc. Some of these WERE extinct in the wild and wouldn't BE here if it hadn't been for zoos!

The San Diego zoo is preventing the last remaining hawaiian crows from embracing oblivion right now, a species for which SO LITTLE of its wild behavior is known they had to write the book on caring for them, and Chester zoo worked in tandem with the Uganda Wildlife Authority to provide tech and funding towards breakthroughs in surveying wild pangolins.

Don't get me wrong;

MOST zoos are not accredited,

nor is accreditation is REQUIRED to make a good zoo,

nor does it automatically PROVE nothing bad has happened in the zoo,

There are a lot more Sam Tiddles' Personal Zebra Pits than there are Chester Zoos.

That's worth talking about! We SHOULD be having conversations on things like,

Is it appropriate to keep and breed difficult, social megafauna, like elephants or cetaceans? What does the data say? Are there any circumstances where that would be okay, IF the data does confirm we can never provide enough space or stimulation to perfectly meet those species' needs?

How can we improve animal welfare for private zoos? Should we tighten up regulations on who can start or run one (yes)? Are there enough inspectors (no)?

Do those smaller zoos meaningfully contribute to better conservation? How do we know if they are properly educating their visitors? Can we prove this one way or the other?

Who watches the watchmen? Accreditation societies hold themselves accountable. Do these organizations truly have enough transparency?

(I don't agree with Born Free's ultimate conclusion that we should "phase out" zoos, but you should always understand the opposing arguments)

But bottom line of my opinion is; Good zoos are deeply important, and they have a tangible benefit to wildlife conservation. Anyone who tries to tell you that "zoos are inherently unethical" either knows very little about zoos or real conservation work, or... is hiding some deeper, more batshit take, like "having wild animals in any kind of captivity is unlawful imprisonment."

(you'll also get a lot more work done in regulating the exotic animal trade in the UK if you go after private owners, btw. zoos have nothing to do with how lax those laws are.)

Anyway I'm a funny cat blog about battle kitties, and the stuff I do for BB is to educate about the ecosystem of Northern England. If you want to know more about zoos, debunking misconceptions, and critiques from someone with more personal experience, go talk to @why-animals-do-the-thing!

Keep in mind though, again, they talk about American zoos, where this post was written with the UK in mind.

(and even then, England specifically. ALL UK members and also the Isle of Man have differences in their laws.)

(If anyone has other zoo education tumblr blogs in mind, especially if they are European, lmk and I'll edit this post)

On Nature Reserves

Remember how broad the legal definition of a zoo actually was? Same thing over here. A "nature reserve" in the UK is a broad, unofficial generic term for several things. It doesn't inherently involve statutory protection, either, meaning there's some situations where there's no laws to hold anyone accountable for damage

These are the "nature reserve" types relevant to my project; (NOTE: Ramsar sites, SACs, and SPAs are EU-related and honestly, I do not know how Brexit has effected them, if at all, so I won't be explaining something I don't understand.)

Local Wildlife Site (LWS) Selected via scientific survey and managed locally, connecting wildlife habitats together and keeping nature close to home. VERY important... and yet, incredibly prone to destruction because there aren't good reporting processes in place. Whenever a report comes out every few years, the Wildlife Trust says it often only gets data for 15% of all their registered sites, and 12% get destroyed in that timeframe.

Local Nature Reserve (LNR) A site that can be declared by a district or county council, if proven to have geographic, educational, biodiversity, or recreational value. The local authority manages this, BUT, the landowner can remain in control of the property and "lease" it out (and boy oh boy, landowners do some RIDICULOUS things)

National Nature Reserve (NNR) This is probably closest to what you think of when someone says "nature reserve." Designated by Natural England to protect significant habitat ranges and geographic formations, but still usually operates in tandem with private land owners who must get consent if they want to do something potentially damaging to the NNR.

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (pronounced Triple S-I) A conservation designation for a particular place, assessed and defined by Natural England for its biological or geographic significance. SSSIs are protected areas, and often become the basis for NNRs, LNRs, Ramsar sites, SACs, SPAs, etc.

So you probably noticed that 3/4 of those needed to have the private ownership problem mentioned right in the summary, and it doesn't end there. Even fully government-managed NNRs and SSSIs work with the private sectors of forestry, tourism, and recreation.

We live under Capitalism; EVERYTHING has a profit motive, not just zoos.

I brushed over some of those factors in my Moorland Research Notes and DESPERATELY tried to stay succinct with them, but it was hard. The things that can happen to skirt around the UK's laws protecting wildlife could make an entire season of Monty Python sketches.

Protestors can angrily oppose felling silver birch (a "weed" in this context which can change the ecosystem) because it made a hike less 'pretty' and they don't understand heath management.

Management can be reluctant to ban dogs and horses for fear of backlash, even as they turn heath to sward before our eyes.

Reserves can be owned by Count Bloodsnurt who thinks crashing through the forest with a pack of dogs to exhaust an animal to death is a profitable traditional British passtime.

Or you can literally just pretend that you accidentally chased a deer for several hours and then killed it while innocently sending your baying hounds down a trail. (NOTE: I am pro-hunting, but not pro-animal cruelty.)

The Forestry Commission can slobber enthusiastically while replacing endangered wildlife habitats with non-native, invasive sitka spruce plantations, pretending most trees are equal while conveniently prioritizing profitable timber species.

I have STORIES to tell about the absolute Looney Tunes bullshit that's going on between conservationists and rich assholes who want to sell grouse hunting access, but I'll leave it at this fascinating tidbit about air guns and mannequins which are "totally, absolutely there for no nefarious reason at all, certainly not to prevent marsh harriers from nesting in an area where they also keep winding up mysteriously killed in illegal snares, no no no"

BUT. Since Nature Reserve isn't a hard defined legal concept, and any organization could get involved in local conservation in the UK, and just about anyone or anything could own one... IT'S CHESTER ZOO WITH THE STEEL CHAIR!!

They received a grant in 2021 to restore habitat to a stretch of 10 miles extending outside of their borders, working with TONS of other entities such as local government and conservation charities in the process. There's now 6,000 square meters of restored meadow, an orchard, new ponds, and maintained reedbeds, because of them.

It isn't just Chester Zoo, either. It's all over the UK. Durrel Wildlife, which runs Jersey Zoo, just acquired 18,500 acres to rewild in Perthshire. Citizen Zoo is working with the Beaver Trust to bring beavers back to London and is always looking for volunteers to help with their river projects, and the Edinburgh Zoo is equipped with gene labs being used to monitor and analyze the remaining populations of non-hybrid Scottish Wildcats.

The point being,

Nature preserves have problems too. They are not magical fairy kingdoms that you put up a fence around and then declare you Saved Nature Hooray! They need to be protected. They need to be continuously assessed. They are prone to capitalist pressures just like everything else on this hell planet. Go talk to my boy Karl he'll give you a hug about it.

"Nature Preserves" are NOT an "alternative" to zoos and vice versa. They do not do the same thing. A zoo is a center of education and wildlife research which displays exotic animals. A nature preserve is a parcel of native ecosystem. We need LOTS of nature preserves and we need them well-managed ASAP.

We could never just "replace" zoos with nature preserves, and we're nowhere near the amount of protected ecosystem space to start thinking of scaling back animals in captivity. Until King Arthur comes out of hibernation to save Britain, that's the world we live in.

An Aside

My project and my research is based on the isle of Great Britain. The more I learn about the ecosystems that are naturally found there, the more venomously I reject the old lie, "humans are a blight."

YOU are an animal. You're a big one, too. You know what the role of big animals in an ecosystem are? Change. Elephants knock over trees, wolves alter the course of rivers, bison fertilize the plains from coast-to-coast. In Great Britain, that's what hominids have done for 900,000 years, their populations ebbing and flowing with every ice age.

Early farming created the moors and grazing sheep and cattle maintain it, hosting hundreds of specialist species. Every old-growth forest has signs of ancient coppicing and pollarding, which create havens for wildlife when well-managed. Corn cockle evolved as a mimic of wheat seeds, so farmers would plant it over and over within their fields.

This garbage idea that humans are somehow "separate" from or "above" nature is poison. It's not true ANYWHERE.

It contributes to an idea that our very presence is somehow damaging to natural spaces, and to "protect" it, we have to completely leave it alone. NO! Absolutely NOT! There are places where we have to limit harvesting and foot traffic, but humans ALWAYS lived in nature.

Even the ecosystems that this mindset comes from rejects it, but this shit doesn't JUST get applied to British people who become alienated and disconnected from their surroundings to the point where they don't know what silver birch does.

It's DEADLY for the indigenous people who protect 80% of our most important ecosystems.

It's a weapon against the Maasai people, stopped from hunting or growing crops on their own land. It's violence for 9 San hunters shot at by a helicopter with a "kill poachers on-sight" policy, as one of the world's LARGEST diamond mines operates in the same motherfucking park. The Havasupai people are kept out of the Grand Canyon that they managed for generations because they might "collect too many nuts" and starve squirrels, Dukha reindeer herders suddenly get banned from chopping wood or fishing, and watch wolves decimate their animals in the absence of their herding dogs.

It's nightmare after nightmare of human displacement in the name of "conservation."

That all ties back to that mindset. This idea that nature is pure, "pristine," and should be totally untouched. There are some starting to call it Fortress Conservation.

You can't begin to understand the criticisms of modern conservation without acknowledging that we are still living under the influence of capitalism and colonialism. Those who fixate on speaking for "animals/nature/trees who don't have a voice" often seem to have no interest in the indigenous people who do.

Listen. There's no simple answer; and the solution will vary for each region.

Again, my project is within the UK, one of the most ecologically devastated areas in the world. There are bad zoos that the law allows a pass. There are incredible zoos that are vital to conservation, in and outside of the country. There's not enough nature preserves. The best ones that exist are often exploited for profit.

I hope that my silly little blog sparks an interest in a handful of people to understand more about their own local ecosystems, and teaches folks about the unique beauty even within a place as "boring" as England.

But, my straightforward statement is that I have no patience for nonconstructive, broad zoo slander that lumps together ALL of them, and open contempt for anyone who tries to sell nature preserves like a perfect, morally superior "alternative." We need them BOTH right now, and we need to acknowledge that zoos AND preserves have legal and ethical issues that aren't openly talked about.

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

What a fantastic example of what accredited zoological facilities can acheive for the welfare of their animals when they collaborate.

Monarto Safari Park is creating an amazing open plains elephant habitat, along with a state of the art elephant barn/shelter for quarantine and medical care.

They've just welcomed Burma, the last elephant housed in human care in New Zealand, to this facility with more elephants from around zoos in Australia set to join her.

A lot of the elephants set to arrive are now alone after herd members passed away. Since we know these are highly social animals that live in matriarchal societies, it's important that they have a herd. So instead of leaving them where they are, the zoos are working together to bring these lone elephants together so they can form a new herd.

I'm really excited to see this project come together and I can't think of a better team to pull this off than Monarto!

Check out the habitat map - it's going to be massive! But also have the means to provide care and allow visitors to see these gorgeous animals, so that's really exciting!

[agent-oo-z]

Alright time to talk about the thing that is my entire life.

African painted dogs! These gorgeous canids are unique in so many ways, but my favorite useless fact is that they don’t have dewclaws!

Here are some of my pictures of painted dogs I’ve seen in person at zoos. Someday I hope to see them in the wild.

These are all from the Denver Zoo. That last picture is of Nigel, the three legged painted dog! His rear right leg had to be amputated for health reasons and his tail was damaged as a pup and ended up partially falling off. He’s doing super well now and is such an amazing individual. I was lucky enough to interview one of his keepers for a project in college!

These guys are from Animal Kingdom. Hate on Disney all you want but animal kingdom is an AZA accredited facility that participates in conservation efforts so don’t shit talk it on my post.

This beauty is obviously deceased, but I’m including them regardless! They are part of the collection and displays at the Chicago Field Museum!

[orcinus-veterinarius]

https://aqua.org/stories/2023-06-26-sanctuary-state thoughts? I really don’t like this. THE National Aquarium has fully embraced the ARA rhetoric around dolphins in captivity, saying that their own dolphin exhibit is “patronizing” and “for human entertainment”, despite the fact that they’re a scientific aquarium that is clearly leaps and bounds better than any of those cheap tourist trap dolphin swim places. The “Whale Sanctuary Project” has clearly stated on its website that they want to put an end to all wildlife in captivity, so it honestly makes me sick that National is partnering with them. They’ve turned their backs on all their colleagues in the AZA that have dolphins and slandered them. I hope they lose their AZA accreditation over this.

Thank you for this ask. I read National's statement a few weeks ago, and it made me sick to my stomach. I didn't post about it because honestly I was unsure I would be able to speak on the issue without becoming overly emotional, but you have expressed basically everything I feel.

At this point, it isn't that National is moving their dolphins to a sea pen that bothers me. We've known this for seven years, and since they're an AZA facility, I had to at least have a little faith that this was for the animals' wellbeing. I've met several trainers and veterinarians who left the National Aquarium at least in part due to their handling of the dolphin situation, but I never imagined it was this bad until now. This world-renowned aquarium is repeating activist rhetoric pretty much verbatim. They're partnering with an anti-zoo organization that works against everything they stand for as an institution. They're publicly slandering their colleagues. If I didn't know better, I would think this was a thinkpiece by PETA and not an official statement from an AZA institution. I also find it incredibly disturbing that they claim the "success" of SEA LIFE's Beluga Whale Sanctuary (and the non-existent Whale Sanctuary Project??) serves as their example, when it has been... slightly less than successful.

If I could ask National's CEO one thing, it would be this: Are the other animals in your collection not entertainment? What makes them different? What makes them "education" but your dolphins "exploitation"? Elasmobranchs, for example, are a staple of public aquaria, but they present their own host of issues. Reproductive disease, nutritional imbalances, musculoskeletal deformities. Why are you giving up on your dolphins but not them? Will you let an activist group take them next?

I'm afraid I must agree with you... they do not deserve to remain in the AZA. Not if they're going to brazenly accuse their fellow members of animal abuse while allowing anti-zoo organizations to dictate their own animals' care. I'm really, really scared of where this is going, and I would love to see the other AZA aquariums housing cetaceans (Brookfield Zoo, Disney's Epcot, Georgia Aquarium, Indianapolis Zoo, Marineland Florida, Mystic Aquarium, Shedd Aquarium, Texas State Aquarium, the SeaWorld parks, and numerous international members) release a joint statement on the issue affirming their committment to ex situ conservation, research, and public outreach. And I deeply hope none of the "10 other dolphin-holding institutions" mentioned are AZA facilities.

I wish the best to Beau, Foster, Chesapeake, Bayley, Spirit, Jade, and their caregivers, who are losing the animals to whom they've devoted their lives to a situation in which they have no say.

I do also wish to share this statement from Jason Bruck's lab. Dr. Bruck is a PhD animal behaviorist specializing in dolphin communication and cognition both in the wild and in human care.

[bignosebaby]

what kind of hours do zoo workers have? how often do they get to reintroduce animals to the wild? do they get to work with international zoos and nature reserves? do they have to work with people a lot? how do they choose what plants go into the enclosures of animals that live in drastically different environments?

There are many different zoo workers including animal care specialists, veterinarians, guest guides, and support staff such as custodians and staff for the gift shops, food services, and ticket intake. And those are just the employees that work on site on a standard day, not including administrative work! In terms of animal care specialists, the standard working day is 8 hours but it can vary. Animal care specialists are very busy! A single animal care specialist will often be responsible for entire areas. For example, instead of being just a gorilla caretaker, one would be primate specialist for the African rainforest area which would have them dividing their time between the gorillas, mandrills, and colobus monkeys. On top of this, they will often assist in other departments as needed due to the unpredictable nature of zoo work. So standard full time hours, but early mornings would be common and some would be on call while off duty, especially vets.

Introducing animals to the wild is a long and slow process that necessitates collaboration between many people and organizations. The Calgary Zoo is also the Wilder Institute, the latter referring to the conservation and international affairs aspect of the institution. The Wilder Institute and organizations like it in other zoos do a lot of work involving the communities local to where their animals are indigenous to, to help protect these species in the wild. The Wilder Institute's community conservation project works to help develop symbiotic relationships between people and wildlife internationally to support long term sustainability. While the majority of animals in zoos cannot be released, when there is an animal that is determind to be able to thrive in the wild the institute will collaborate with communities and organizations local to the animals native region to set it up for the most successful reintroduction policy. So animal releases are not very frequent, but when they are done there is a lot of work done to ensure they are done right. Because the Calgary Zoo is in Canada, they mostly do wild release with species native to the area. They work with local wildlife rehab centers to help raise rescued infants (one of the endangered owls at the Calgary Zoo's Canadian Wilds exhibit is a prolific foster mother for chicks) and will house unreleasable animals such as nuisance bears to prevent them from being euthanized. We tend to think of zoos and sanctuaries as very different, but their work overlaps.

Every (credible) zoo works with many other zoos and nature reserves, acting as one branch of a series of massive conservation programs and initiatives. The Wilder Institute collaborates with a wide network of international bodies, and doing so is often a requirement for accreditation. Zoos as a whole are sort of a living Svalbard seed vault-- the species survival plan matches animals across zoos to find the best genetic and personality matches to allow animals to breed in captivity to create a population safety net for the species. This means that even if an animal goes extinct in the wild, there will be a diverse and healthy population in captivity that could potentially repopulate their native area. This is why I am such a big supporter of zoos! They do so much to prevent extinction on a global scale.

Working with people is a MASSIVE part of zoo work. Zoos have tons of employees and volunteers whose main jobs are answering questions and educating the public. The most important animal in sucessful conservation is humans, because we have the power to mobilize and save other species together. As such, zoos work with guests of all ages to raise awareness, foster appreciation and passion for wildlife, and raise money for their work and projects.

This is a great question which boils down to the basics: what does the species use the plants around it for? Obviously if you're furnishing an outdoor enclosure in Calgary the plants of the African rain forests aren't going to thrive. Additionally, since species are staying in the same areas, if they are hard on the plants they aren't going to grow back as well. As such, native flora that is sturdy and hearty works well, or fake trees that are specifically made to be climbed on can be a good substitute. Keepers may even put greens and foliage on wood structures to mimic tree foraging. Most plants are fair game as long as they are safe to ingest and add something to the habitat, meaning that once the practical concerns are met (safety, sturdiness, hardiness) aesthetic choices can be made.

Hope this answers all your questions! I took my time to make sure I was thorough.

[kariachi]

Fic! A zoo will soon be opening a handful of new exhibits...

~~

Rolling his shoulders, Ross straightened his back and took a steadying breath as they waited for the signal. It wasn’t that he didn’t like giving interviews, he wouldn’t have his job if that wasn’t something he could do with pleasure, but damned if big changes like this last one didn’t make him nervous. There had been mostly positive responses from the public, but he couldn’t help but be firmly aware that this was something new and untested from an accredited establishment, and this interview meant there was only so much time before everything was put out for all comers to see. In time to words he couldn’t hear, he watched the man behind the camera- Cian, liked ocelots, got to pet one when they still had one as an ambassador when he was a kid- silently count down.

“Everything’s great here, Trina,” the newscaster- Keshawn, had a cockatiel at home, swore up, down, and sideways the best animal was the gila monster- crowed as soon as the count was done, flashing a massive grin. Ross didn’t even try to match it, contagious though it was. “Hi folks, it’s Keshawn Marshall here live at the Rosewood Grand Zoo to talk with Affairs Director Ross Martinez about the new area everybody is talking about. How’s it going, Ross, is everybody excited?”

“It’s great, Keshawn,” Ross said with a smile, slipping properly into interview mode, “we’re really looking forward to the opening of our new Galaxy of Life area this weekend.” They’d been planning it before they even had the space available. If nothing else it would nice to be able to call it all done and public. “We’re certain visitors will find the animals as delightful as we do, some of them are real characters.” Keshawn laughed, honest and real.

“Seeing the new friend you’ve got just over there, I don’t doubt it,” he said, glancing over Ross’s shoulder, “but I get the feeling we’ll be meeting him in a minute.”

“He’s looking forward to it.” He wasn’t sure that he was, but he trusted that if that wasn’t the case he’d have gotten word and they’d have adjusted the setting to showcase another animal.

“Until then, Ross, why don’t you tell us a little bit about this new showcase?”

“Gladly.” Ross couldn’t help smiling wider, shoe scuffing against the ground so he could focus. “Our new Galaxy of Life area has been built to showcase a collection of animals from various other planets with the hope of improving education about and empathy with our galactic neighbors through our shared love of the natural world. We also will be presenting information on conservation groups and projects throughout the galaxy, and how we all work and learn together to improve how we each take care of our planets, and help to take care of each other’s.” Somehow that had hit the worldwide conservation community like the greatest wrecking ball, the realization that not only did the entire galaxy have groups dedicated to these causes, but that so many were willing to work together across species lines. Were willing to help and accept help from Earth in turn.

He still got warm and fuzzy when he thought about it.

“That sounds amazing,” Keshawn said, “an entire galactic community coming together in hopes of preserving all the unique life there must be out there.”

“And one Earth’s conservationists are happy to be a part of. In fact, visitors will be able to see an endangered alien species we’ve already agreed keep a small breeding colony of, while learning more about conservation and conservation success stories across the Milky Way in our Cave of Wonder.” Ross had known that one would get a laugh, and wasn’t disappointed.

“You couldn’t help yourselves, could you?”

“Nope. The staffs’ kids picked it out.” They’d given an early tour to all the families, and had the children vote from a list of options. ‘Rainbowrama’ had come second place, and he was kind of sad about it. Leaning back on his heel, Keshawn just barely tilted his head to one side.

“Just how many animals can guests expect to see when they come through?”

“We have thirty-eight animals across seven species from seven planets,” Ross recited off the top of his head. “Including two species from as far off as the Osmosian and Erinaen Empires-” And hadn’t that been a shocker, when Secretary Levin had gotten wind of their plans and put them in touch with people working with those far-flung planets. “-but personally, I think the biggest attractions will be the ones from our nearest neighbors, Hasiel and Kinet.”

“And is one of those where our new friend comes from?” There was the cue.

“Yes, it is,” he said, stepping aside so that is coworker could get comfortably in front of the camera with her charge, “as Poltiff can tell you.”

“This,” she immediately started off, relatively new to her position working with their animal ambassadors but already taking to it like a duck to water, “is Spot, he’s a renkol from our nearest inhabited neighbor, Kinet.” And he was taking to the camera as well as anyone could hope, or at least Ross hoped he was. It was hard to tell, really. Stacy had described them as ‘what would happen if you told someone to draw a falcon given a few key traits and a picture of a dragonfly as an example of an Earth aerial predator’. They were easily among the strangest creatures in their collection now, and Keshawn and Cian stared appropriately.

“He’s beautiful,” Keshawn said with awe, throwing glances at Cian like he thought he might be missing this- he was not. “I thought zoos liked to give their animals names from their homeland though?”

“We do prefer that,” Poltiff said, “and all of the animals in the Galaxy of Life area came to us named appropriately, but unfortunately there’s some names that only a handful of members of staff can pronounce due to biological differences. In those cases we either give the animal a nickname or, in this case, use the translation into English.” Somehow, the news crew managed to perk up further, finally getting a grin out of Ross. Spot, meanwhile, calmly eyed them from his perch on Poltiff’s arm.

“So even in the depths of space, people are naming animals things like ‘spot’,” Keshawn asked with a joyful laugh in his voice, and Poltiff grinned back at him.

“It turns out people are people wherever you go,” she said. “Spot here is in training to join our team of animal ambassadors. He’s not ready for the job just yet, but in his downtime he’ll be on display with our other three renkol, so visitors will still have a chance to see him when they come to the zoo.”

“My kids are going to flip.” Shaking his head and visibly resisting the urge to ask if he could pet him- it showed clear as day in the flexing of his hand- Keshawn took a quarter step back. “When can I bring them over?”

“Everything will be made available to the public when the zoo opens Friday morning,” Ross said, cutting back in as Poltiff stepped back, cooing at Spot as she turned to take him back inside. The camera followed the pair of them rather than focusing on himself and Keshawn. “From which point we have every intention to keep it open for regular zoo hours indefinitely. Everyone will have plenty of time to come out and see what the Milky Way has to offer.”

“Well, you can expect me to be the first person in the door, and the last one out of it,” Keshawn said, subtly waving to Cian that they were ending the segment. He came to the realization with a jolt, driving Ross to laughter as he spun back around to focus on Keshawn as he turned to the camera. “There you have it- Ross, Poltiff, Spot, and everyone else here at the Rosewood Grand Zoo has been working hard, and we here at Heartwood News are looking forward to getting a good look at just what they have to teach us. Isn’t that right, Trina?” The air hung empty after those words for the seconds it took for the feed to switch back over, a transfer marked with a thumbs-up from Cian. Ross and Keshawn both dropped the tension of being on air immediately.

“Hey,” Cian asked, fiddling with the camera and not quite meeting Ross’s eyes, “I know we probably can’t pet those things-”

“Renkol.”

“Yeah! Renkol! I know we probably can’t touch them, but, you know I’d love to get a shot of a feeding or something. You know, a snippet to go before commercials.” Still smiling, Ross nodded, heart warming at the way they both rose just slightly on the balls of their feet.

“Lucky you, it’s just another hour before their scheduled feeding,” he said, mentally going through the routes around the new area, “if you’ve got the time to kill, I can give you a sneak peak at their enclosure while we wait. It’s actually quite the show.” And having them there, with a camera, would be a good early test for if they could advertise feedings for public viewing. The pair grinned back at him, nodding like they were testing the attachment between head and neck.

“We can make time-”

[gornwen]

Zoos and aquariums are often the birth places and homes of many of the most important conservation projects! One of the zoos I worked at is the birthplace of the Snow Leopard Trust, which is doing amazing to preserve ecosystems in Central Asia by partnering with people who actually live with these animals.

The people working at accredited zoos and aquariums are absolutely in love with the animals they work alongside, and probably like those furry and scaly coworkers more than they like other people. There are continuing conversations about how best to care for the animals, improve and enrich their environments, and look holistically at how to both be a genetic ark for their wild cousins and importantly how to actively prevent extinctions.

And! Zoos are actively researching how we learn empathy and experience wonder! So much of what we understand about how we humans learn outside of school comes from zoos, aquariums, and museums. Empathy, as in sure you can imagine, is crucial for building a functioning society.

Go and enjoy visiting that zoo, too. And pay attention to what conservation projects they are highlighting! Part of your admission is going directly to fund those efforts!

One thing that pisses me off is people seeing fish in aquariums (the establishments, not home aquariums) and being like “It’s so sad because the ocean is so big and the tank is so small and they’ll never know freedom blah blah blah-“ I’m not talking about sharks and marine mammals here but the majority of fish are not at all bothered by being in an aquarium instead of the open ocean. Like, I personally would love to be a little clown fish in one of those big reef tanks. Fed regularly. Whole team of people monitoring my health and well-being. No predators. Medicated if I show signs of illness. Aquarium fish have cushy gigs in comparison to their wild companions.

[allthenewzworld]

Five elephants in a Colorado zoo could someday sue for their freedom, if the state's Supreme Court sides with an animal rights group and declares them "persons" under the law.

The NonHuman Rights Project says the elephants Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo should be able to use a long-held process that's mainly for prisoners to dispute their detention.

The group says the animals, born in the wild in Africa, are showing signs of brain damage because the zoo is essentially a prison for such intelligent and social creatures. They want the animals released to one of the two accredited elephant sanctuaries in the U.S.

The Cheyenne Mountain Zoo says moving the elephants would be cruel at their age.

The justices will issue a ruling in the coming weeks or months.

Read more at the link in bio.

[statisticalcats2]

Wow, Brookfield Zoo has huge plans over the coming years! Huge renovations that are actually updates! I was already so ecstatic about the renovations for Tropic World (which will be called Tropical Forests when it's done) and I'm glad that's one of the first projects on their list (already in the works, with an expected completion in summer of 2025), it was so greatly needed. Tropic World was a huge investment that was basically outdated when it was built, such a sad waste of resources. I'm so happy it was towards the top of their list to update. (On a gorilla note, Brookfield's one of the last two AZA accredited zoos that currently has no outdoor area for their gorillas, with this update the gorillas will be able to go outside!)

It does look like they may be planning on having elephants again, which I have mixed feelings on. Elephants are really hard to care for properly, which is one of the reasons fewer zoos are keeping them than there used to be. They had elephants when I was a kid, but the group dwindled and from what I remember, after the death of the matriarch, they decided to move any remaining elephants to another zoo rather than bring in more elephants. I think it was a welfare-focused decision so I'm cautiously hopeful about the plans they've drawn up and the resources they've grown to make things ready to have resident elephants again.

So far this big investment/plan seems like actual good modernization and updates!

(Disclaimer that I'm not a zoo expert and don't intend to come off that way. I volunteer at a zoo and have varying levels of higher insight than the average guest because of that and because of connections through my special interest in gorillas but I'm by no means an expert. These are just personal, non-professional opinions.)

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

I just wanted to drop a note to thank everyone who has supported the Patreon over the years, or signs up for things like my (free) Substack. It really means a lot.

I update both of those platforms infrequently. I’ve tried to build better habits about that over the years and continually run into the same problem: I don’t want to post anything about what I’m working on unless I’m 110% sure my opinions is informed as possible and I am not sharing anything erroneous. There is so much misinformation out there regarding animals in general and zoos and exotic animal politics especially that I absolutely do not want to add to it.

What that means in practice is that topics often take months to years to research, and big projects need multiple years to end up with something I’m comfortable publishing. (That accreditation reporting writeup was an idea I chewed over for easily two years prior to starting work; then it took spent six months to researching write it up). I have one project in the wings where I can’t even start a major part until Feb 2024, because data collection has to happen after the implementation of a new set of federal regulations. These things are great for creating quality work, but less good for providing people who are supporting your work with something tangible on a reasonably frequent basis.

Also, at this point? Most of my current big projects are so complex - and such novel things to study about the zoo industry - that I’m taking the extra time to really cross every t and dot every i with the research, and then get them peer-reviewed through credible academic journals. I think there’s four or five different projects that will be papers I’m working on simultaneously (and sporadically) right now. And as many of you know, this is a hobby, not a paying profession.

So. Thank you for sticking around through the long silences and the intermittent publications. I have so much I want to talk about, but it has to wait until I can do it right. I have so many cool things planned (like, multiple interactive websites) for once everything is finished and published. Whether or not you’re on the Patreon or just awaiting infrequent Substack updates, I really appreciate all of it.

[is-the-primate-vid-cute]

Not sure if this has been asked before, but what's your opinion on people wanting basic human rights to be extended to great apes? It sounds like a noble cause, but I can't help but feel like there might be unintended consequences if it were to actually be applied (such as for example, zoos being forced to get rid of their apes even when sanctuaries are already loaded with unwanted primates)

You know the expression "what's good for the goose is good for the gander?" well, what's good for the human is not always good for the monkey. All great apes deserve to live happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives, but they do not need to be extended the same rights as humans because our ideas of human rights are, well, human centric! If we apply our ideas of what makes a good life to how we treat great apes we are no longer choosing to act in their best interest; we are prioritizing our own preferences over their wellbeing. This is why I prefer animal welfare over animal rights, because it recognizes that every species has its own unique set of traits that can't just be painted with the same broad strokes as humans.

So what would treating primates with dignity and care that takes into account their needs look like? Well, lets look at an example! The Toronto Zoo's gorilla enclosure is home to eight lowland gorillas and boasts a 6 million dollar indoor enclosure with a massive domed skylight to let in as much sunlight as possible, amenities to mimic the gorillas natural habitat such as tropical plants and artificial giant logs, and the gorillas have tons of space where they can control how much human (and fellow gorilla) interaction they have. Basically, not only do the gorillas have their basic needs met, but they have everything a gorilla needs to live their best life.

When advocating for any cause its important to think about what the most beneficial and impactful work you can do is. If you want to help great apes live rich, fulfilling lives, the best things you can do are to advocate for protecting their natural habitats, patronize accredited zoos and sanctuaries, and donate to charities on the front lines of primate aid.

Gibbon Conservation Society

Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Project

Lemur Conservation Foundation

Jane Goodall Institute

African Wildlife Foundation

Amazon Conservation Team

Link additional relevant conservation efforts!!

[newhorizons-paleozoo]

Welcome

Ladies, gentlemen, non-binary folk, and everyone else around and inbetween; welcome to New Horizons Paleozoological Sanctuary! As with many paleozoological locations around the globe, we specialize in the study and conservation of prehistoric creatures, all under the safety of our borders. As part of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, we strive for the best of the best in the habitation and health of our animals, with 45 different de-extinct species and nearly 200 individuals in total in our North Carolina location. New Horizons is dedicated to our mission to learn, preserve, and nurture these remarkable animals.

Our Mission

The New Horizons Paleozoological Sanctuary was founded with three key principles:

To protect our animals and help them grow

To learn from our animals to better understand them

To share our knowledge with the public

These three goals are the foundation of New Horizons at its core. We have state of the art facilities and top researchers from around the globe to both find new information and study the information from all other paleozoological locations to make sure we are up to date with all the information we have. We are proud to be accredited as members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the International Zoo and Aquarium Fund, and the Global De-Extinction Group. 

History

History:

The New Horizons Paleozoological Conservation Park was conceived in 2034 by Dr. Jade Onyx, a paleontologist who was on the forefront in the de-extinction conversation on news and social media. As a world-famous paleontologist, she was steadfast in her voice to protect the resurrected species. With their help, zoos all over the world began housing extinct species until the new locations were created. After becoming a paleobiologist and studying abroad, Dr. Jade Onyx discovered a group of feral Psittacosaurus’ in North Carolina. Receiving funding, they housed them until the International Zoo and Aquarium Fund paid for a proper facility, which then grew into New Horizons. 

New Horizons officially opened to the public in 2038, and is now one of the most famous paleozoological locations in the world.

Founder:

Dr. Jade Onyx is a world famous paleontologist who has loved dinosaurs since they were a kid. In her own words, she watched the Jurassic Park movies and was not deterred by them. Instead, they fell deeper into fascination with prehistoric life, which only grew as time increased and watching famous paleo-documentaries such as Walking With Dinosaurs (1999) and Prehistoric Planet (2022). As the process of de-extinction was being finalized and perfected, Jade became a paleobiologst to study these magnificent animals, until she was on the frontlines of the de-extinction debate.

Dr. Jade Onyx is publicly AMAB non-binary and uses she/they pronouns. They received a Bachelor of Arts in Biology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte; a Masters in Paleontology at North Carolina State University; a Doctorate of Paleontology at North Carolina State University; and a Doctorate in Paleobiology at North Carolina State University. They are an award winning scientist who puts the health of her animals first, and we at New Horizons are proud to call them our Founder.

Contact Us

Telephone Number

+1(302)-867-5309

Social Media Handles

@NewHorizonsPZS

Address

5 New Horizons Road, Wilmington, North Carolina, USA

Email

newhorizonsofficial@fakemail.com

Inspiration

New Horizons was heavily inspired by the incredible work of Joschua Knüppe that I found on Instagram, and the Thomas Henry Huxley Paleozoological Gardens that I discovered on Tumblr. Links will be posted below to those locations. While these two projects reignited my interest and gave a framework for New Horizons, I have also had my own prehistoric creature zoos in the past, but none of them came to public. I had a project called Sanctuary Gardens that I lost interest in, as well as several Minecraft worlds where I designed zoos for prehistoric creatures.

[orcinus-veterinarius]

I posted 935 times in 2022

That's 243 more posts than 2021!

169 posts created (18%)

766 posts reblogged (82%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@actuallycuteanimals

@is-the-primate-vid-cute

@fluffydogbutts

@orcinus-veterinarius

@delightful-dolphin

I tagged 923 of my posts in 2022

Only 1% of my posts had no tags

#queue - 563 posts

#pets - 160 posts

#marine mammals - 129 posts

#wildlife - 128 posts

#cetaceans - 127 posts

#zoos - 86 posts

#orcas - 81 posts

#cats - 81 posts

#dogs - 78 posts

#killer whales - 76 posts

Longest Tag: 139 characters

#’trust these infographs made by me… whose only title is ‘activist’… more than these accredited zoological facilities! watch a netflix doc!’

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

If you ever go on a dolphin tour boat and your guide permits passengers to feed or jump in the water with wild dolphins, entices the dolphins closer to the boat with various forms of bait, chases after them, or attempts to corral them with other boats for a better viewing experience, please report them to Fish & Wildlife for violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Feeding, touching, or harassing any marine mammal is prohibited in US waters. Document the violations if you can.

The beach town where I’m staying for my internship is full of dolphin tour boat companies who condone or even practice these illegal, harmful activities. It’s very disturbing to see locals and tourists alike posting on social media about their ~magical wild dolphin encounters~ without knowing or caring about the danger to the animals. Wild dolphins need to stay wild. They cannot rely on humans for food. They cannot lose their wariness of boats. Not to mention it’s unsafe for you. Dolphins are intelligent, wonderful creatures, but they’re not the gentle, benevolent entities popular media has made them out to be—they’re large, powerful, wild animals that deserve respect. Please enjoy observing wild dolphins from a safe distance, and if you ever find yourself approached in the water, let them pass by you undisturbed.

1,684 notes - Posted June 30, 2022

#4

Baymax has veterinary programming 😭

1,838 notes - Posted July 1, 2022

#3

See the full post

2,677 notes - Posted June 12, 2022

#2

The first of several red wolf pairs was recently released into the wild by USFW, and the Facebook comments on the official announcement are of course filled with uneducated hunters and self-proclaimed “wildlife biologists” labeling them “vermin,” “coyotes,” or “not real wolves,” and openely promising to shoot or trap them to “protect” the deer and turkeys. The red wolf project is incredibly personal to me, and it’s absolutely nauseating to see cruel, selfish humans threaten the lives of animals I know and have cared for. 

Red wolves (Canis rufus) are native to the southeastern United States. We have fossil evidence dating them back at least 10,000 years. Recent DNA evidence (2021) suggests their presence in North America may predate even gray wolves and coyotes, making it impossible for the species to be simply wolf-coyote hybrids as was once widely believed. The American Society of Mammology recognizes them as a distinct species, and they are protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Red wolves are a separate, unique species. Red wolves are part of the natural ecosystem of the southeastern United States, and they have been here long before European colonists ever arrived. Red wolves belong on their ancestral land. They are considered critically endangered by the IUCN Red List, and killing one carries grave legal consequences under federal law. Conservation is about maintaining a healthy planet of both predators and prey, not preserving overpopulations of game species so there’s plenty to go around for recreational hunters. 

Save the American red wolf.

3,869 notes - Posted February 27, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

All my homies hate PETA.

16,310 notes - Posted April 7, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

I don’t have any specific information on this, but from industry experience, I don’t think this is going to be driven by HPAI. The information they’ve released so far makes it sounds like a pretty standard zoo renovation/improvement project. Let me explain.

The information released by the county is pretty limited so far, but the language and framing used implies this is part of the zoo’s long term master plan. Accredited zoos (both AZA and ZAA) are required to maintain master plans: basically, roadmaps for the future of the facility. These are usually updated on regular cycles. I want to say 5-10 years, but I don’t have data on that for sure. Master plans lay out a facility’s needs and planning in terms of space, growth, conservation plans, species they want to get, etc. The press release says that they’re closing the building and decommissioning it (e.g. it won’t hold animals off-exhibit or be used), and that they’re going to be retrofitting some of the exhibits and building something new on the space as well. That’s a pretty normal master plan update, especially for areas that are reaching the end of their lifespan or where the design of the exhibits can’t keep up with evolving welfare considerations for the species that live there.

The thing about tropical buildings, specifically, is that they are awful to maintain because of the necessary climate. Especially those that are walk-through spaces, because it means the whole public-side of the building is damp and warm. I’m very sensitive to mold, and I can’t think of a tropical building I’ve been in that didn’t vaguely smell like it (and some of them are really, really bad). All that humidity and heat also contributes to the rotting of wood and drywall and rusts metal. They’re also very prone to pests. If a building like that isn’t well constructed, or even if maintenance just gets deferred for too long, upkeep can become a losing battle. That can lead to unsafe conditions for animals, guests, and staff. It’s much more realistic and cost-effective for facilities to demolish buildings like that and rebuild, rather than try to keep them functional. That’s what happened at the North Carolina Zoo, mentioned by a previous poster: their announcement about it says that it was “built in the early 1980s, [and] the 40-year-old domed structure requires significant repairs due to the effects of high humidity and wet conditions.” I don’t know for sure that’s what is going on at Cape May, but 25 years is a relatively short lifespan for major zoo buildings, and the comments in the press release about maintenance and repairs being untenable imply it’s a similar situation.

Another reason I don’t think it’s likely due to HPAI concerns is that, unfortunately, industry response to bird flu is really inconsistent even across accredited entities. I’ve talked to staff whose facilities have gone to extreme lengths to remove risk to their birds due to nearby HPAI cases in wild migratory birds… but across town or an hour down the highway, it’s business as normal. Some facilities take specific action when there’s increased transmission nearby, and some just don’t seem to do anything. I don’t get it. But a big part of why facilities bring birds inside or “close” exhibits when HPAI is a concern is that the other option - constructing exclusion barriers - is expensive, time-consuming, and not always possible. Reducing bird flu risks in outdoor habitats requires retrofitting them so that no wild birds can enter, period. I’ve mostly seen this done by putting a second layer of mesh with very small holes over the original netting, or by putting up plexiglass over the mesh (it varies by exhibit style). I know of one facility in a temperate climate that has a huge open-air flamingo habitat, and they actually put up an entire new mesh/tarp canopy to protect their birds. If there’s an immediate risk, facilities are more likely to bring their animals into indoor enclosure, if possible, even if it’s only until they can get physical barriers up. That type of construction isn’t always possible, though, especially with big flight cages, and can cause guests to complain about reduced visibility of the animals. Walk-through aviaries have a different type of risk to the birds: there, the concern is that the public might bring the virus into the exhibit space on their clothing or shoes. I don’t know exactly what criteria for HPAI transmission nearby facilities use to assess when to close or open walk-through exhibits, but I don’t think it’s consistent across the industry. Last I knew, buildings with that sort of setup at the San Francisco Zoo were still closed, but the Brookfield Zoo currently has buildings open where free-flight birds that can enter the public’s space.

I don’t know of instances where facilities are reducing their bird collections explicitly due to HPAI. While I’m sure it’s an additional impact on the logistics and cost of housing birds, I’ve heard people talking more about a trend away from birds in terms of loss of staff expertise, decreased breeding success, and an alternate focus on megafauna. I’m sure there are times that HPAI has led to birds leaving facilities, because if a facility can’t house a bird appropriately while keeping them safe, it makes sense to transfer them to somewhere that has a better set-up. I haven’t been at conferences for the last couple of years so it’s possible I’m missing information here, but I haven’t heard anything from my network of industry colleagues to indicate that HPAI is driving zoos to divest from bird species.

The announcement made by Cape May also doesn’t necessarily mean they’re getting rid of all of the birds in that aviary, or that there won’t be birds in whatever is built instead. They did note that some exhibits will be renovated, and those could be used for birds in the future. It’s also perfectly reasonable that the birds living there currently will go somewhere else during the construction - that’s normal, and expected, to ensure their welfare. Major construction projects at zoos take years to complete and are loud and stressful, and if there’s nowhere else on the zoo grounds for them to live, they’ll need to go to a facility that can give them appropriate housing for the interim. Birds that are part of SSPs may be needed to produce babies during that time, and they’re not going to breed well in temporary holdings or if they’re stressed, so moving them makes sense. Now, it’s probable that there won’t be as many birds living in the new construction - the folk upthread are right that there’s a general trend away from bird collections and towards megafauna in the industry - but we won’t know the extent of it until more information is released about what the county has planned for that part of the zoo.

We definitely don’t know enough at this point to say anything specific about the impacts of Cape May’s planning choices. I can’t find much information about the current master plan online at all. So what will be important to watch for is more announcements about the type of species they’re planning to put in the space, and what the design will look like. Some zoos purposefully build in small animal exhibits or mixed-species habitats with birds, and others don’t. But from what’s been announced, this looks like a normal industry renovation project that solves a problem for the facility, not something bird-specific.