Time for a discussion. Seemingly a simple question, I’ve come across a lot of surprising and often ambiguous answers. Although the typical definition involves wild animals in captivity on regular public display, and perhaps paid entry, there are plenty of cases where it might not be so clean-cut. One of the reasons I don’t keep a list is because of the ambiguity surrounding the classification of a collection, and I think one of the reasons I’m using the term ‘zoological collection’ more regularly is to avoid this kind of debate, but I think it does need a discussion. I’ve also been asked this a lot recently, and have been surprised at the extent to which others will go when classifying animal places as zoos. I guess this is more a question of what you’d count as a zoo, or as an individual collection. Would you be comfortable enough to add it to your list? Where do you draw the line? These are mostly from my notes, so they might not make a great deal of sense, and they may express my opinions in places, but I thought it’s worth outlining a few cases which may be more controversial: • Random aviaries: - Would you consider a lone aviary/small series of aviaries in a park/airport/hotel/mall? To what extent? • Falconry centres o In general, I would presume these count, but what about private centres with good collections but only offer paid experiences; what if these are off-site? o What about falconry displays in touristic areas? o Is it a zoo if a falconry centre only has five birds? So what about stalls or advertising displays? • Shows o Again, to what extent? If falconry shows count, what about reptile/small mammal shows at hotels/parties/shops? Do circuses then come into this? • Museum displays o To what extent? E.g. with an aquarium (Cosmocaixa Barcelona, London’s Horniman) - definitely. But smaller exhibits, e.g. London’s NHM and leafcutter ants, or even rarer species like South American lungfish at Berlin’s NHM. o Temporary exhibits, like Butterflies at London’s NHM? • Single-species exhibit o E.g. Berlin’s bear pit, Tower of London’s ravens o If so, what about temporary single-species exhibits (e.g. visiting reindeer or Hamleys’ penguins) o What about random exotic birds, e.g. flamingos in restaurants (like Jungle in Alexandria), pelicans in parks (St. James’s Park, London) or budgies/canaries used as theming/decoration (see random aviaries; hotel point above) o If you count Berlin’s bear pit, would you count a museum/education centre with a single native species (e.g. frogs), or a few native species? If there’s a line somewhere between frogs and bears, Shirokuma has recently mentioned caves with tanks of Olm in Slovenia. Would that count? So do the species of wild animal on display make a difference to whether a place counts as a zoo? • Rescue centres o Do rescue centres with only very few animals on display count? Then what about lodges/tourist centres with rescue animals? • Relocated collection o Same core collection, different site (e.g. London’s Tropical Forest). Does it count twice? o Same site, different name… (When could this be justifiable?) • Farm o What about farms / petting zoos with entirely domestic collections, but a few more interesting creatures (and then which creatures? e.g. guineafowl, camel, yak, ?ostrich...) • Pet shops o Although pet shops with some interesting species wouldn’t logically count, what about those where you pay to enter a small display area, designed to exhibit animals? (e.g. in Barcelona & Madrid) • Random aquaria o In (relatively) private areas, e.g. Aquarium Restaurant (Dubai) or London’s Heron Tower? How about in hotels? • Private collections o Would you ever count a private collection? o What if they offered tours? How occasional could these be for it to count? o What if they were once public, or intend to become public? Would they then count? (twice)? o What if only the main viewing area is private (e.g. Heron Tower Aquarium)? • Zoos + aquaria together o Often obviously the same collection, but what if a separate entry fee is required, and they can be entered individually? What if the aquarium is good enough to stand on it's own (e.g. Berlin)? What about these branded Sea Life centres in theme parks? Could they ever count alone, or would they make it look (on paper) likeLegoland or Alton Towers Theme Parks are entire zoos? • Fisheries o If members of the public can visit, and rare species are on display, would they count? What if a purchase is necessary? I was reluctant to consider a floating bar in Vietnam with interesting animals in sea pens. • Insects o If butterfly houses count, do captive honeybee colonies render a honey shop/bee park/bee museum a zoo?
Very interesting question. By definiton a zoo is a place that displays primearly wild animals and is open to the public, with or without an entrance fee. I would count these type of institusions as zoos: Zoo Safari park Tropical zoo/rainforest zoo Minizoo Wildlifepark Aquarium Terrarium/reptile zoo Marine mammal park Bird park Falconery centre Primate park Rescue center Insect/butterfly zoo Animal theme park Places I do not count as zoos: Single standing exhibits/shows/aviaries/aquariums Museum displays Farms/childrens zoo/petting zoo Pet shops Private collections Fisheries
Merriam-Webster defines a zoo as "a place where many kinds of animals are kept so that people can see them". But while that may be a common definition, I prefer to reserve the term for "proper" zoos whose primary purpose is the display of animals (as opposed to a nature center or museum that happens to have a few animal exhibits), that are not primarily aquariums, which are not just road-side attractions, and which are not ranch-style facilities whose primary attraction is a mixed collection of free-roaming ungulates. I categorize facilities into one of three categories: 1. Zoos 2. Aquariums 3. Other Of course this is all very subjective and I don't expect others to agree with me. I'm just giving my opinion.
I have often pondered the same question,DF and haven't come up with an answer other than a place to see animals that normally wouldn't be native IE Exotic or visible to the general public, IE Scottish wild cats are native but hardly visible to the population, brown rats aren't native but most people have seen them. so a collection of native pine martens, wild cats red squirrels possibly water voles, could be still classed as a zoo to me, but not ones with rats or pheasants, (ring necked) or crows, magpies etc. Having said that, displayed imaginatively with under ground viewing etc as well as above ground and in water, the brown rat could make an interesting exhibit,(Emmen zoo) as would a lot of our native fauna For want of a better word I think zoo is to animal displays as arboretum it to trees in most peoples imagination. which follows that they will expect to see if not ABC species at least unusual and I would think preferably large ones. I doubt any of this helps though
This is a simple question with a simple answer in the UK. The Zoo Licensing Act defines the word zoo. To quote from HMG's website You’ll need a zoo licence if you’ll be displaying wild animals to the public for at least 7 days a year, in any place that’s not a circus or pet shop. Alan
On a thread that I began a few weeks ago the vote was 11-4 in favour of Seattle's Pacific Science Center being a "zoo": http://www.zoochat.com/2/seattles-pacific-science-center-zoo-396384/ I've really wrestled with the notion of what is or is not a "zoo" and at the end of the day it appears as if we all have our own subjective views on the topic. A Bug Zoo establishment with 25 terrariums is a zoo in my mind as it has exotic creatures and the word "zoo" in the title. Rescue sanctuaries with exotic animals also count in my book, as there are sanctuaries in the U.S. with 150-300 big cats and they most certainly have the appearance of a zoo. Tiny aquariums with a dozen tanks are still technically aquariums as the word is in the title, exotic creatures are on display and keepers are there to look after the various species. Ucluelet Aquarium on Vancouver Island, which I have never visited, is only open for half the year but it is obviously still a fully-functioning aquarium for those 6 months. What poses a dilemma are places like Science Centers with perhaps 10-15 terrariums in one gallery or a Nature Center with a handful of tanks. I lean towards saying no for such places as the "zoo" portion is significantly tiny to perhaps not warrant attention. Also, Natural History Museums with one portion of the facility set aside for a few live animal exhibits are also confusing. In some cases I believe it comes down to the sheer quantity on display. I don't count any domestic farms but a deer park with herds in pastures (plus perhaps a few small cages of lemurs and raccoons) would also count. Family farms with zero exotics would not work as then an individual could include farms in all directions and a lack of exotics would not fit into my self-imposed "rules". There can always be exceptions to all rules and the word "zoo" has many connotations and meanings.
What is the difference between a zoo and a wildlife park? In UK was the first wildlife Park the Norfolk Wildlife Park opened 1962, and where was the first wildlife park in the world?
Norfolk Wildlife Park was the first collection to use this term. They had mainly European fauna and were in a very rural setting. The idea has grown up since then that a 'wildlife park' is somehow more respectable than a zoo. I would suggest that a wildlife park IS a zoo, and that zoos are good things. One has to be very careful talking to organisations that 'rescue' animals. Even if they have captive animals and are open to the paying public all year, AND have a zoo licence, they will insist that they are not a zoo, as if zoos by definition were horrible places.
I think it all stems from the public perception- somewhat outdated now- that 'Zoos' contained small cages with bars and concrete while 'Wildlife Parks' were grassy green places where animals roamed more freely. Of course not all of that was so, but Zoos soon latched onto this more favourable perception and some of them tried to lose the 'Zoo' tag if they could.
Example; MonkeyWorld. They are even nowadays associated with the Zoo EEP programme for Orangutans as they offer a handraising/socialisation service. Walk around Monkeyworld and it feels like the large Primate section of a 'Zoo' but they still try to disassociate themselves from the name. Of course Howletts/Port Lympne go one stage further, with their outright condemnation of 'Zoos.'
In my zoo list I include any facility I can enter and see wild animals that aren't for sale. Therefore I'd include a 'pet's corner' in a local park if I had to enter the area (even if free) and could see non-domestic animals but I wouldn't include a park aviary. I'd certainly include an aquarium and think that by not doing so perpetuates the idea that only mammals are animals as much of the population seems to think. It would make no sense to me to leave out an aquarium but include a zoo that kept just mammals. On the subject of sanctuaries, if they let the public in they're a zoo. Many sanctuaries take the attitude that it's somehow OK for them to keep animals in captivity but no one else. The worst of the offenders is the Wales ape and monkey sanctuary, they have a clear anti-zoo message and promote the idea that all animals in captivity are suffering. If they genuinely believed this they wouldn't prolong the suffering of the animals they keep, they'd euthanase them.
I count any facility that usually charges admission, has a primary focus on animals, and is on show. Nature centers and rescue centers count, so do standard zoos (duh!), aquariums, farms/petting zoos, small "museum zoos", sanctuaries, etc. as "animal establishments". I use the term animal establishment more than zoo. I have visited 6 in CA, 1 in NM, 3 in IL, 1 in MI, 3 in PA, 2 in DC, 1 in NY, and a staggering (wait for it- 20!) in OH, mostly small nature centers, etc. in NE Ohio. That means I have visited a staggering 37 animal establishments!
How about theme/amusement parks? Some of them I group with circuses, but others kind of walk the line with being more like a traditional zoo. Also, how do sanctuaries fit? Legitimate sanctuaries don't usually breed the animals they take and won't do things like photo ops, but some do allow people to pay to come see the animals. (though they generally have fewer amenities than a traditional zoo, and many require you to be with a tour guide, you can't freely walk around. For the sake of discussion, I'm talking about legitimate sanctuaries, not lousy roadside zoos that call themselves sanctuaries to look good) Such places are basically zoos without breeding.
It's also gotten increasingly common for places to call themselves sanctuaries, even if they're not run any differently from zoos. (legitimate sanctuaries that allow visitors often at the very least don't breed their animals) A lot of people fall for it, they pay to take a picture with a baby tiger or swim with a dolphin in a small enclosure and defend the place because it calls itself a sanctuary, even if the practices and conditions of the facility are questionable at the least.
I have a pretty loose definition, which allows me to include most establishments that have captive wild animals for the purpose of displaying them to the public. So I'd include obviously zoos (wildlife parks, sanctuaries, all other words) and aquariums, as well as theme parks and museums if they also had displayed animals. But not pet shops, circuses or farm parks. I suppose pretty much any place that could (theoretically) be a member of a zoo association (WAZA, AZA, ZA, EAZA, JAZA, SEAZA, etc) might be a good definition? For example, in Australia, several theme parks and museums are part of ZAA. Although I know some private collections are part of these associations too.
By that logic you'd include one of my local Chinese restaurants that has two large tanks of impressive tropical fish!
Many years ago I went to a nightclub which had many tropical fish tanks (the loud music must have been detrimental to the fishes welfare) and I suppose I could have considered it a zoo but I was really thinking of an area specifically designed for the display of wild animals. I guess no definition is going to be watertight. I could end up including every restaurant with a tank of live lobsters and indeed your local Chinese if I'm not careful.
In the UK at least, I only class it as a zoo if it carries a zoo license, this includes pets corners to massive zoos and aquariums. The only zoo I have on my zoo list without a zoo license is Heythrop and that is what i would class as a private collection resembling a zoo. I have visited many other private collections but they do not make the list as they are either specialist or not open to the public at any time during the year.
We can easily define some types of specialist collections, such as aquaria, falconry centres, bird gardens, but it gets tougher when we try and differentiate between zoos and wildlife parks. Wildlife parks are a specific genre of zoos, but whether they can be regarded as more respectable I am not so sure. In the 1970's there was a proliferation of wildlife parks and many were run on a shoe string, were poorly run and failed to thrive. The same can be said about many small zoos. There are some wonderful wildlife parks and zoos, and it is the larger zoological institutions, with their research and conservation programmes that are the more prestigious. These are just my views, it would be good to hear how others feel.
