I visited today and nearly fell over backwards when I saw Steller's Sea Eagle in the former turkey vulture enclosure.
I've always thought it would be great if they put the large African animals in the same enclosure as the Elephants. It's a huge area and it would be great to see them with the Giraffe, Zebra, Ostrich and perhaps Rhino. What would be the barriers to this? I've never seen a mixed savannah style enclosure in a zoo so I don't know if the animals could be housed together but they all seem to be placid in the wild so don't see they would be any different in captivity
African elephant bachelor group Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm is currently home to two young African bull elephants, 9-year-old M’Changa and 12-year-old Janu but we are thrilled to announce that we will soon become home to more African bull elephants. We plan to put our 20-acre Elephant enclosure to good use and provide the home for the UK's only African elephant bachelor group – an initiative which has been welcomed by the European Endangered Species Programme (EEP) for African elephants.
Made my first visit today. I'll add at the start that I wouldn't normally have gone out of my way to visit any UK zoo in February, nor visit Noah's Ark Zoo Farm based on what I have read about it, but my daughter had a regional Brownie/Guide meeting there. We figured it was an opportunity to see what it really was like. I'm not going to go through exhibit by exhibit, as I'm sure it won't have changed dramatically from other people's visits. I'll give a more general view. Highlights: best exhibit was the Spectacled bears/coatis. Lovely size. Only criticism was that it could have had a nice glass viewing area at ground level under the viewing platform, instead of looking through a mesh fence! All the animals looked in good condition, and generally didn't see any stereotypic behaviours which would be of concern. If you have kids then there are plenty of play areas, including a large area in a covered barn. So big we lost our daughter for a while! The 'Meh': The enclosures and the surrounds were functional. There is a viewing platform near the rhinos where you can look across the whole zoo. And see everything. There is no surprise. There is no planting to hide fencing, and very little inside exhibits for the animals. Everything looks like a fence around the paddock. Basically you can see it was designed by a farmer. The collection is mostly classic ABC animals. Nothing wrong with that. But little to get excited about if you have been to other zoos. Steller's sea eagle, White-headed vulture and Beaded lizard probably the most unusual species. Lowlights: We sat in on one of the animal displays/talks. It was without a doubt the worst talk that either my wife or I have ever had the misfortune to listen to. Both of us have worked in zoos in the past and listened to many other zoo staff giving talks. We know what makes a good interesting talk. This was unmitigated rubbish. To make matters worse it wasn't some disinterested staff member, but the owner. It waffled. It covered all sorts of subjects in a random thrown-together manner. Basically badly delivered. It was boring (certainly didn't keep my daughter interested). It had a powerpoint flashing up images/statements which followed the talk, but with so much information you struggled to read it before it was gone. And then you had the creationist spiel interwoven into the talk. Apparently the cross markings on the backs of donkeys are a result of 'god's mark' because Jesus rode one. Imagine most of it goes straight over the average visitor's head. Don't have a problem with people and their religions, but really should keep it to himself. And it ran for half an hour! We gave up after 25 minutes. Longest 25 minutes of my life. Excessive signage. Have seen it before in other zoos and doesn't look good. And the signage was covered with grammatical mistakes. Most of it seemed to be free of the creationist stuff. Overall, I wouldn't go out of my way to visit again. Wife summed it up as the 'family pub' of zoos ie. a Beefeater. For those not familiar with family pubs the food is pretty average, they are noisy with little kids and 'fun' with no frills. Basically NAZF has plenty for families with loads of kids to run around for several hours. That is their core business and they are happy with it.
I visited the place last year and felt pretty similar things. The poor quality of the signage was particularly noticeable, and there were occasional little hints at the creationism angle (until you got into the playbarn where it was plastered over every surface). Functional is definitely the right word. I'd not budge myself to go back, particularly considering the cost. And I am not sure why people would go there rather than the far superior Bristol Zoo, or Wild Place Project (for those who don't want to travel into the city).
A friend suggested a number of possible reasons, including ease of access (but Wild Place is even easier), play areas for the kids (Bristol is pretty good and I think the Wild Place play opportunities are better than Noah's Ark - though I will accept that neither Bristol nor Wild Place have the opportunity to slide out of an elephant's rear end!) and seeing ABCs. I still think Bristol and Wild Place have enough ABCs to appeal, but clearly plenty of people disagree with me. Noah's Ark have certainly been effective at advertising themselves to families.
I think there is just one reason, sadly, which has been articulated here: While, of course, it is right and proper that the days of Bristol’s 12 acres containing rhino, giraffe, elephant, polar bear, brown bear, orang utan, chimpanzee, okapi, tiger (in addition to gorilla, lion and fur seal) are long gone, there can be no doubt that people go to zoos to see animals. I wish this were so, but it is very easy to visit Bristol and feel as if not much has been seen (especially if one is a zoo muggle, for whom a shadowy quoll and some stick insects are not massively alluring).ABC-wise, it’s lions (possibly the zoo’s least-satisfying exhibit), gorillas, penguins, fur seals, monkeys. That’s pretty much it. Wild Place is expanding all the time, and is potentially excellent, but ABC animals? Giraffes, wolves. You could make a case for cheetah, okapi and gelada, but a real line will be crossed when bears arrive there. If the development of Wild Place continues apace, then I think it really will challenge Noah’s Ark for local hegemony.
...and that's not an understatement. I have only been once, I thought it a queer place, have never seen a 'zoo' like it. Its really still a farm, but with ABC exotics. I haven't been since they built the Elephants or Bear enclosures but the earlier ones are very basic. It felt very much like a much larger version of the many farms all over the country that have diversified with additional attractions like children's petting areas, play barns and other novelties, but Noah's Ark have gone into the big exotics as well....
You forgot Zebras.. and going further back, Wolves, three other Bear species and Ostrich and Deer etc. I think nowadays one of Bristol's problems is that the diminished number of ABC species which they do still have are split between the two sites. But the reasons for that are obvious and locals can always alternate their visits. Wild Place could eventually out compete Noah's Ark but they'll need a lot more animals yet before they reach that stage I think. Now if they were able to shift everything from the Clifton site to Wild Place, they'd be getting on real terms- creating a major zoo again and so accessible too...
If I understand your implication that Noah's Ark gets more visitors than Bristol correctly, is this really true?
No, you are correct. Noah’s Ark doesn’t - yet - match the visitor numbers at Bristol. They, apparently, receive about 200,000 visitors per year (and rising). 2,000,000th visitor welcomed to top Somerset attraction. The 2015 Annual Report for Bristol lists 593,000 visitors - although I am not sure how many of these were paying visitors, and how many would be members visiting many times. In the same year, Wild Place received 100,000 visitors. ALVA lists Bristol as having 562,000 visitors in 2016. I have heard that 2017 was down on this number, while visitors to Wild Place continue to increase. So, contrary to what I wrote earlier, the zoo continues to enjoy a Bristolian hegemony- although their position is certainly weakened by the presence of Noah’s Ark - particularly as the latter place makes much of advertising itself as being a zoo at which one can see “big” animals.
I live within 40 minutes of the three the zoos and like them all for different reasons (I'll save that explanation for another day). Recently, I went to NAZF for a research project on the Andean Adventure Exhibit. I can't tell you how helpful the zoo, and the keeper Emma who showed me round were. I was given behind the scenes access and a variety of useful info for my project. The safety protocols they have are fab, and it was great to see how well run the section is... can't fault them at all in this respect! Just thought it would be nice to share some positives.
Species found at more than one of the zoos in Bristol include: All three: Ring-tailed lemur, meerkat Bristol Zoo and Wild Place: Alaotran gentle lemur, Visayan tarictic hornbill Bristol Zoo and Noah's Ark: Lion, Brazilian tapir, blue-and-yellow macaw, Malayan box turtle, Aldabra giant tortoise Wild Place and Noah's Ark: Plains zebra
I noted that Wild Place has a reticulated giraffe and that Noah's Ark has an unspecified type of giraffe. Giraffe systematics is confusing at the moment, so I'm not sure if the two places have the same species.
Completely agree about it being a farm with zoo animals. We have seen them up and down the country, usually with some deer, porcupines, meerkats, skunk, wallabies etc. NAZF have just pushed the envelope and added the bigger species. I have never visited it but I'd imagine Folly Farm in Wales would be a similar bet. Certainly the photos make it look similar in regards to the complete lack of landscaping. Another point in regards to people making comparisons with Bristol and Wild Place (I haven't visited the latter either), is that I'm not sure most people visit NAZF for the animals. It sounds odd that people might go to a 'zoo' and not go specifically to see the main attractions, but given the huge indoor play area, multiple smaller outdoor play equipment (my eyes cannot unsee that elephant slide...) and the 'largest' hedge maze in the UK, I think that most of their clientel (young families) go for the play factor. Yes they also get a chance to fondle rabbits and sheep as a bonus. Chance for the kids to run amuck in a safe environment. The bear exhibit was a good size with a reasonable amount of enrichment. Mostly lacked vegetation, but given that most exhibits lacked anything other then grass, it would be hard to single out the bears. The elephant barn plus paddocks looked over-designed. I swear you could manage some of the inhabitants of Jurassic Park franchise in that barn. They have certainly spent a huge amount of money, which makes it even more of a shame that the large paddocks are mostly just flat grass. No undulation, a couple of fenced off individual trees. Boring. The bright red posts are a bit in your face too. Another interesting observation is how many species are housed as pairs ie. two by two. Elephants, giraffe, rhinos, tigers, lions, tapir, iguanas, bears. There were possibly more species like this. For some of these species a better herd structure would be more natural, and I wonder how much incentive the owners have to add more individuals. Or does this upset the narrative?
