The definition of a zoo is a constant, almost omnipresent debate among zoo enthusiast on this site. We often argue about the requirements that a facility needs to be called a 'zoo'. Last year, I made this thread, explaining my definition of a zoo and asking others about their definitions. Here are my requirements: The facility must be open to the public for at least three months of the year. The primary purpose of the facility is to exhibit captive animals OR to teach about nature via captive animals. The facility must display at least 3 species, at least two of which must be exotic (non-domestic) species. You must be able to visit the facility without a guided tour. The primary purpose must not be too sell animals. The facility may still count if it does sell animals, as long as it is not the primary purpose. The facility must be permanent and be at a fixed location. After some recent discussion in the gallery and various threads here on ZC, I began to wonder if the infamous hellhole Beaver Springs Park Aquarium counted as a zoo. If you read some reviews on Google or Tripadvisor, you can pretty easily find that the primary purpose of this "aquarium" is not to exhibit captive animals or to teach about nature via captive animals. It is to con unsuspecting visitors out of their money! This violates my second rule for a definition of a zoo! You see, Beaver Springs Park Aquarium has some stocked ponds for fishing. The only one with really any chance of biting is the most expensive one. For every inch if fish you catch, you have to pay $2, according to the contract you sign. In fine print. This is literally a scam! So I guess my question is, can a facility whose primary purpose is to con you out of your money count as a zoo?
I would so no, it's not a zoo (err, aquarium). However I also do not agree with your fourth definition. A lot of good zoological facilities require you to go on a guided tour (Cat Haven and Monterey Zoo, just to name two in California off the top of my head).
I would prefer these kinds of discussions go on the thread I made for them instead of here. The reason I have that is because I think you can't really call the facility public if it is open for guided tour.
Why? A public facility is any piece of land that is funded by either government or public funds. If people are allowed to access it by paying for entry, it is considered a public facility.
As I said earlier, this discussion should go on the other thread! I would be happy to discuss it there, but this thread is not the place for it.
Just a few points: you literally put the words "the definition of a zoo" in the thread title; you included your "definitions" of a zoo in the first post; and you are apparently asking if Beaver Springs Park Aquarium fits the/your definition of a zoo. Yet you don't want anybody discussing your definition of a zoo? Then what is the point of the thread?
I want people discussing the if a scam counts as a zoo, the other parts are irrelevant to this topic.
Then why did you post your "requirements" at the top of the thread? By disscussing this topic we do need to set some requirements, no? I am arguing against one of them and therefore discussing if scams count as zoos.
Okay, your definitions of what makes a zoo are irrelevant to this question, yes? So, "I guess my question is, can a facility whose primary purpose is to con you out of your money count as a zoo?" - the answer is a definite yes. There is nothing inherent in a scam which negates any other aspect of a zoo being a zoo. Answer conclusively given.
I never said they were irrelevant. Let's try again. What I'm trying to say is do you think that Beaver Springs Park Aquarium counts as a zoo? I posted my rules for a frame of reference for what a zoo is. But because Beaver Springs can be visited without a guided tour, that particular rule does not matter in this situation.
Implied in your query is that you seem to have in mind a seventh condition, that a proper zoo has to be operated ethically. While I would certainly like zoos to be operated ethically, I can think of many examples where they have not been so operated. Furthermore there is a whole other debate as to what is ethical operation anyway. (Interestingly the ZAA Australia is going to address this at their next conference in May.) So the answer to your question is yes, because the ethical stance of the zoo has no bearing on your conditions. By the way I also do not agree with your fourth condition. Moonlit Sanctuary started as tours only, for instance. It is also worth remembering that the institution that actually gave the word "zoo" to the world, London Zoo, started out as a members only institution.
At risk of being horribly pedantic, it was actually Bristol, rather than London, Zoo about which the word “zoo” was first used!
Really? I always understood it was London, based on a popular song of the time. As they say learn something new...
The once famous Victorian music hall artist, known as The Great Vance, was best known for the song "Walking in the Zoo" (published circa 1869). This song was responsible for popularising the abbreviation "zoo"; the song was about London Zoo so the word "zoo" definitely entered popular useage as an affectionate name for London Zoo. However, as "Sooty" has mentioned, the first known use of the abbreviation "zoo" referred to Bristol Zoo. I believe it is attributed to Lord Macaulay in 1847 so this predates the music hall song by some twenty plus years.
