Meaning no disrespect, but your viewpoint expressed here is exactly what I'm talking about by a "purist" point of view. You want your zoos to be zoos and amusement parks to be amusement parks, and no mixing of them, doggone it! The fact is, there are plenty of zoos out there, and there are plenty of amusement parks, but what there are very few of is "theme parks" with an animal theme. One thing to understand is that amusement parks (often called coaster parks) are different from theme parks. An amusement park is a park entirely dominated by roller coasters, other thrill rides, and basic carnival rides. A theme park is a type of amusement park, but one which has a specific "theme". For example the Disney parks are theme parks, with the theme being the world of Walt Disney entertainment, particularly the Disney movies. The Universal Studios parks are similar, except their theme is Universal movies. There are only a few theme parks where the theme is animals -- Disney's Animal Kingdom, Wildlands, Kolmarden, Arizona's Wildlife World Zoo, and in the USA, the Sea World parks. While the mixing of animals and entertainment may not be to everyone's taste, they are very, very popular with children -- and their families. I saw one post here on ZooChat which said Wildlands is losing money and their number of annual visitors is down, but I cannot find this story online. One thing I did find online is that before Emmen closed and rebuilt as Wildlands, the old Emmen Zoo was losing a lot of money! I will confess that when I first heard about Emmen closing and rebuilding, I thought it was dumb. On my 2010 visit to the old Emmen Zoo, I thought it was tremendous! Why would they want to improve on something which was already great? But knowing now that they were losing money, and that they had no room (by the original site) for expansion, I can better understand their motivation. Still, until I visited Wildlands in 2016, I was skeptical. But when I did visit, I realized I was in a very special, mostly unique, place. While I missed the old Emmen Zoo, I'm not going to romanticize it. There are plenty of other zoos in Europe which are similar to the old zoo, but very few which are like Wildlands. I badly hope Wildlands survives and thrives. No, I don't want every zoo to become a Wildlands, but a few of them here and there would be a good thing. My only point in approving of (and wanting) other ways of entertainment in zoos is that I'm recognizing that my view is not the same as my children's view. I currently have a sweet 6-year-old girl growing up in my house. Because of her exposure to, and relationship with, me she is a real animal-lover and she likely knows more about the world of animals than probably 95% of children her age. She and I love watching Jack Hanna's and other animal shows on TV, but sometimes she would rather just watch a Disney movie. Why? Because she's 6. When I take her to the Zoo at least once a month, she loves watching the animals, learning about them, petting them (including the sharks), and feeding them (birds, flamingos). But sometimes, she also wants to ride the carousel, the sky ride, or even the mini-roller coaster. Why? Because she's 6, and children just enjoy some thrills. It's not an either/or thing, it's a both thing. So am I failing as a "parent" because my girl likes BOTH animals AND ride thrills? I hope not. Walt Disney's point, from a zoo point of view, in his famous statement ("I would rather entertain and hope that people learned something than educate people and hope they were entertained.") is that if we entertain the kids, they will have fun and their minds will be stimulated. They will then want to come back to the zoo, where they'll continue to learn more about the animals -- when they're not on a ride. Sooty, you are obviously a school teacher, and if I didn't already know that about you, this statement would make that clear. You want zoos taken "more seriously". That's fine and good, especially for school children visiting the zoo on a school field trip, but when they're at the zoo with their family, why can't they also have a bit of crazy fun?
Thanks for the long reply, Allen. I feel that this is simply an area where we are going to have to agree to disagree - and however much we wish to toss things around, you're going to think your way, and I'm going to think my way. That is fine: I like watching football (or "soccer") and listening to Bob Dylan and Emmylou Harris; I'm guessing that you might like baseball or something, and - and I might be wide of the mark here - I'm going to pin you as a soft rock man. Nothing wrong with such divergence. The same is probably true of zoos, except that, possibly, the Nyhuisian point-of-view might be argued to take us to a position where animals are demeaned by being used as simply another element in an "entertainment experience". To pick up on a few points you make, though.... Although you direct this at @lintworm, I would take it as a compliment to be described as a "purist" - and I suspect he might too! Possibly - you are much more expert on "amusement parks" than me. But what there are many of are zoos that dip their toes in this particular water, that want to be seen as zoos but nonetheless still have the sorts of elements we are discussing - zip-wires, excessive playground-age, 3D tomfoolery..... In a way, I respect those places which go the whole hog rather more than I do those that try to ride two horses at once. I sympathise with what you write here, but I would ask whether when you take her to the Indianapolis Museum of Art, to see its Neo-Impressionist paintings; Japanese paintings of the Edo period; Chinese ceramics and bronzes; paintings, sculptures, and prints by Paul Gauguin and the Pont-Aven School; a large number of works by J. M. W. Turner (thank you, Mr Wikipedia), do you, too, expect to be able to offer her "the carousel, the sky ride, or even the mini-roller coaster"? Should you attend the Eiteljorg Museum, is there a requirement for circus entertainment and funfairs? From what you have written elsewhere, I believe your faith is important to you: when you go to church, with your children, is there a need to lace the service in which you are participating with "thrills"? No, of course you're not - but I must admit that I do struggle to understand why it is that children can't eschew the sorts of excitement of which we talk for a while.... It won't kill them to be calm, reflective and in 'learning-mode' for a day! This is where we disagree! I'm all in favour of fun - in the right setting. At the zoo - as at the museum, or the library, or the church - children should be able to focus on the thing at hand, be it animals, art works, artefacts, their faith, whatever, without recourse to "crazy fun". I suspect that within the narrow confines of this website, my new will find more sympathy than yours; amongst the diet public, there will, i am sure, be greater sympathy for Nyhuisism. It is also worth my pointing out that I adopt my purist point of view from a position on the sidelines. Were I the director of a zoo, and having to deal with the pragmatic (and financial) realities of things, I might be a little keener on a "Go Ape" high-ropes walk than an aviary for small brown birds. But I am not a zoo director, and thus can remain a purist - and one who simply won't ever be convinced by the argument made here by @ANyhuis, however charmingly he makes it!
@All readers: if you have some time, try to look up some of the older threads; you will see that this debate "Should modern zoos be institutions of amusement or education?" has been going on for quite a while. In fact, there's a certain "Groundhog Day" time loop element in it, in particular to quoting Walt Disney... Let's be honest: the majority of visitors (including Zoochatters) doesn't go to a zoo with the determination to learn; they go there (especially when the family includes smaller kids) to have a good time. However, the focus on entertainment entails an inherent risk: that if amusement park elements predominate, the zoo might lose its credibility as a place of its self-proclaimed "serious" intentions, such as education and conservation (no matter how successful it is in these fields) that nowadays justify the ethically touchy aspect of keeping wild animals in captivity for the public and political stakeholders . How devastating this loss of reputation and justification can be is well illustrated by the current situation of circuses and dolphin parks. I don't think that most major Western politicians would openly stand in for circuses or dolphin parks these days. I dare to predict that by the end of this century, circuses that include wild animal performances will be considered an outdated thing of the past by the majority of the global public and end up being prohibited (or at least made impossible due to overbearing red tape) in most, if not all, countries. Some zoo people like to pretend that circuses and zoos have little if anything in common and the latter should be banned for good. I wouldn't be so hasty to lose sight of the similarities. Does that mean that zoos should ban any entertainment element out of their facilities? Only if they want to go bankrupt. But one should be careful with the mixing of animals and entertainment; by that, you might create a splendid working surface for the anti-zoo lobby. And BTW @Allen: many of the traditional "purist" zoos are also very, very popular with children -- and their families. Including mine.
Not if it seriously bothers or even harms the animals. Zoos should teach children to respect animals, even if they are "just" there for their entertainment. The line is drawn for me when the "crazy fun" has negative consequences for the animals.
Batto, I think I'd agree with you totally. I'm NOT talking about having roller coasters and other scream-inducing rides winding right through the middle of animal habitats. Only that there might be a few "fun" rides on the grounds of the zoo, hopefully pushed back away from the animals. There are people here who are strongly bothered by that! Quite honestly, former iconic zoo director (and still revered by some) David Hancocks closed down the train ride, carousel, and all other "fun" aspects of the Woodland Park Zoo -- which led to the Zoo's attendance cratering. Despite the loss of tons of money for the Zoo, there are still some here who quote Hancocks and want to see all zoos following his example. Let me use one of my favorite zoos, Disney's Animal Kingdom, as an example. Here is a link to their park map: https://secure.cdn1.wdpromedia.com/...ingdom/Cropped+DAK_0518_Eng.pdf?1530890912602 If you look at it, they have a huge, terrifying (and enormously popular) roller coaster, Expedition Everest, #40 on the map, in the upper right corner of the park. While this coaster induces major rider screaming, you can see that it is far away from any animals (Asian animals are closest at #38 on the map). There's also a wild raft ride, Kali River Rapids (#39), which is a little bit closer to the animals, but still not too close. At night, there's a major fireworks and laser light show, Rivers of Light (#41), but again far away from any animals.
Sooty, you and I are longtime friends, going back to 1994 when you gave me a very nice (and honest) review of my first book. Your response to my email was also wonderfully friendly, so thanks for that. When I read it last night, I was just grateful that your despair over England's heartbreaking loss in the World Cup didn't cause you to blow me out of the water! Thanks! (While you are correct that I'm more tuned to "American" sports like baseball, I am very closely following the World Cup, and in fact, my very favorite sporting event is the Olympics. My president would shudder at this, but I'm very much an internationalist.) That is GREAT! And please know that I mean no disrespect against purists. I only ask that you understand that not all of us are purists and not all of us should be purists, and it sounds like at least you do understand that. My only point towards you, Sooty, was that your purist viewpoint is likely the main reason you didn't like my local Indianapolis Zoo, as well as Columbus and Brookfield. I still believe that if you had come to my local zoo with a young family in tow, you would have enjoyed it much more! I think I most like what you said at the end of your post: I think you're exactly right! And while I'm not a zoo director, I am a travel guidebook author, and as such I have a strong interest is seeing zoos become more popular with increased visitor numbers. This interest is both charitable (I want to see zoos thrive so their conservation and education goals will be met) and self-gratifying (the more people go to zoos, the more they'll buy my books!). Thus, like zoo directors, I favor some "fun", non-animal entertainment options at the zoo. Again, you are correct that it is very important to me, but you'd likely be surprised at the churches I and my family have attended. All offer various "fun nights", which are popular. I'm a Sunday School teacher, as is my wife, and we do indeed try to make the teaching of Bible stories "fun" for the children. And finally, even the somber worship time is much more upbeat, with electric guitars and drums. But guess what? I know of many Christian purists who are horrified at my church's style of worship. I don't judge them for their purist point-of-view, as I only hope they're not judging me for my different views. I agree with you that this is where we disagree, and we can still be friends in that disagreement. You want zoos to be more "serious" while I want them more "fun". I'm not sure if you are the one who once said it here on ZooChat, but someone once said they'd like to see children view zoos more like a library. While I mostly disagree with that, I tend to think you mostly agree. By the way, I'm very impressed that you looked up the museums here in Indianapolis! My 6-year-old is way too young for art museums and frankly, our Museum of Art is ungodly expensive! If it was much cheaper, I might go there more often, but I'm just not much of an art fan to justify the expense.
In most zoos, both available space and budget are limited. Every investment in a fun ride on zoo grounds could also be considered an investment less in the animals (and staff). Of course, you might argue that the fun ride might (sic) bring in more visitors and thus increase the general profit, but this is not always a given (especially in regard to running costs). I might actually consider myself one of these people. I'm very aware that a zoo should be run as an efficient business to keep on going. However, as previously mentioned, I dare to caution that an overbearing focus on amusement (in particular "crazy fun") can make zoos more vulnerable to critique and somehow dilute its general quality. On the long run, this might threaten its raison d'être, as currently exemplified by the fate of circuses. I've been to Animal Kingdom in person, including private behind-the-scenes tours to various sections of it. Like most institutions of the Disney cooperations, it is very efficiently run, but for various reasons, it is not among my favorite zoos. I think it'd be foolish and contraproductive to think that one should & could take the "fun" and entertainment aspect out of zoos. However, I think (and that as a father of small children) that sooty's comment is spot-on. The fun amenities should fit the occasion, not the other way round.
Might I hazard to suggest the right answer is somewhere in the middle? Small children have short attention spans. If we want parents to bring children and for them *all* to enjoy the day (including the beleaguered parents), then something that breaks up the zoo tour and ideally lets kids burn some energy is a good thing for everybody. That even includes kidless visitors, like me, who don’t want bored and cranky toddlers throwing tantrums in the walk-through aviary. In this context, I think a playground that involves active physical play for small children is actually a core component of a good zoo. A roller coaster, though, is not aimed at small children, and rather than complementing good exhibits they simply substitute for them. They are examples of mission creep, where a zoo director gets desperate and/or lazy, and gives up trying to attract visitors (especially young people without children) on the merits of the zoo itself.
The news articles will be mainly in Dutch, here is one that summarizes the current condition: https://rtvnoord.nl/nieuws/195339/Wildlands-in-de-rode-cijfers-1-8-miljoen-euro-verlies The old Emmen zoo was also losing money, but that was due to extremely bad management for many years. Back in 1997 Emmen was by far the best zoo in the Netherlands, but with new management it had gone downhill. Additionally there was no real investment in the old park since it was clear they would be able to build a new zoo. With only part of the money invested in Wildlands they could have done some huge renovations, especially in the museum part, but also in the pretty much failed American enclosure for Bison (a waste of space for such a small zoo). I also hope Emmen will survive, but they will have to adapt their strategy, which they slowly started to do, I just hope it is not too late. The new strategy will however make it more of a "real" zoo than originally envisioned.... As a kid I visited Burgers' Zoo almost weekly and the playing ground was a very important part of the visits back then, less so now . Every zoo needs something in this form, but as @Batto said the amenities should fit the occasion and imo should not distract from the fact that a zoo is a zoo and not a theme park (and you can call me a purist ).
This beggars the question, which zoos get this right - provide playgrounds, and other such excitement, in a way that is discreet, tasteful, possibly even educational, but also offers children a chance to let off steam? Places where the play areas are separated and wholly non-invasive are those which I like the best (unsurprisingly, perhaps). German zoos seem to do this best, but, possibly more surprisingly, some of the French places such as Beauval and La Flèche are pretty low key (=good).
On my trip to Cincinnati earlier this week I noticed these billboards too! I gave the middle finger to the one that said marriage was between "a man and a woman". Once again, I enjoyed the zoo myself and I agree with you about the zoo's weak points, which luckily will be all modified in the next decade. I also learned a lesson on this trip; when its rains, put away your camera! Don't assume because you have your lens pointed down that no damage will be done.
If anyone is interested in actually reading about that there is an article here: New Research at Shedd Aquarium Studies Impacts of Touch Pool Exhibits on Animal Health | Shedd Aquarium The paper itself isn't accessible without a log-in: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
I said: Despite the loss of tons of money for the Zoo, there are still some here who quote Hancocks and want to see all zoos following his example. Batto said: I might actually consider myself one of these people. Batto, from your past contentious posts, I'm not surprised that you are a Hancocks disciple. But what you said above (Does that mean that zoos should ban any entertainment element out of their facilities? Only if they want to go bankrupt.) goes totally against Hancocks' philosophy. He is totally against all entertainment elements of zoos, and he did put the Woodland Park Zoo on the path to bankruptcy by doing this. That was, I've heard, the reason he was fired there in Seattle.
If quoting someone automatically makes you a "disciple", then you'd be my disciple by now. Or at least Walt Disney's disciple. ^^ I think that Hancocks has/had some solid ideas, created some outstanding exhibits and made some good observations regarding zoos; however, I don't think he is impeccable. His idea of a virtual zoo, for example, is imho far too removed from reality. As for "contentious": your attempts to bait me into an argument just for the sake of arguing are becoming tiresome. I'm not interested in serving as your bogeyman image. We disagree on many things - let's leave it there.
Based purely on the article: The study doesn't really say anything about whether touching is good or bad for health at all, because the authors weren't able to control for other potentially important variables like tank size or indoor/outdoor. However it is a reassuring study for Shedd at least.
I'll gladly admit to being a "disciple" of the great man, Walt Disney, at least when it comes to creating incredible tourist attractions. No one did it better than Disney! Glad you don't think Hancocks is impeccable. Sadly there are many who do.
Personally, I don't consider it wise to be anyone's disciple, let alone that of a controversial figure such Mr. Disney; but that's your cup of tea.
