Just wondered what's the general view of visitors smoking around zoos? Obviously people can nolonger smoke in any buildings or covered areas, but what about at viewing points around enclosures etc where people have to gather together to view the displays. On a recent visit to Chester Zoo I had to move my son away from barriers on more than one occassion, due to a smoker resting on it, while holding a cigarette - at my sons head hieght. We also had to run a gaunlet of smokers going into the Ark play area. I appreciate that some people want/need to smoke, but would designated smoking area - as provided in places like Disney's Animal Kingdom - meet the smokers needs or would this only ailienate smokers even more?
Well, I think designated smoking areas would be a better idea. When you're a kid and there's a guy holding a cigarette at child head height you can barely breathe- it's horrible.
I think there should just be designated areas around the zoo like they have in pubs, ones that aren't anywhere near the animals. One of the few things I liked about South lakes was the no smoking policy, but I don't think it's completely necessary. And nobody NEEDS to smoke
Toronto Zoo has designated smoking areas; a great idea. I remember practically gagging at exhibits years ago.
In bioparc all the zoo it's a smoking free area, at least in theory...because sometimes,for the roads I see people smoking,despite warnings by megaphone.
This is something i agree entirely on, Somking areas should be in every zoo seeing people smoking right next to an enclosure with animals at the fence cannot be good aswell as it creates a bad smell for the visitors to put up with. A non-smoking policy around a zoo is great but there would probably be a need for small smoking areas around too,
I have visited lots of North American zoos that are 100% smoke free. If someone wants to be one of the 23% of idiots on the continent that smoke then they can do it on their own premises. Including everyone from babies to seniors I believe that the percentage of Canadians and Americans that smoke is around 12%. The majority rules! However, I realize that in other countries around the world those percentages are much different.
Smokers are drug addicts and there is no reason for any zoo or any other facility in society to accomodate their addiction. Almost every zoo in the U.S. is now 100% smoke free, often without a designated smoking area inside. At my zoo (Reid Park Zoo, Tucson) there is a designated smoking area outside the main entrance (but none inside), although I feel even that is unnecessary. But since we're city-owned, the city laws stipulate there must be one. If the health reasons aren't enough (to ban smoking), how about an environmental reason. Thousands of acres of valuable farmland are being diverted to grow a crop (tobacco) that has no nutritional or medicinal value whatsoever.
A seperate smoking area would be a good start, but I do agree with Arizona Docent that zoos shouldn't accommodate addicts on site because unlike alcohol, smoking affects other people's (and animal's) health. Zoos obviously attract large numbers of children and therefore they should not be subjected to second-hand smoke.
I think smoking is someones choice and they should be free to do it (Not that i support or believe smoking is good) but they should have designated areas or no smoking at all
Ive also noticed in a similar point that Chester Zoo is now selling alchohol to zoo vistors personally i think this is unecessary. But other members my think differently
Honestly, I think it depends a lot on the culture of the community to which the zoo belongs. In areas of the American southeast/midatlantic smoking is still an accepted practice among a large percentage of the population. Similarly, it seems that many parts of Europe accept the responsible use of alcohol in situations that we stodgy Americans do not. Bottom Line: The people who own the zoo, OWN the ZOO. They call the shots; and, ideally the community that visits the zoo has some degree of ownership. This is the population whom they serve/depend on and to whose customs they ultimately must comply. But, in the real world I think isolated, central smoking areas are the way to go.
Finally someone with some sense comes into this thread. Regardless of whether you smoke or not, that's your choice. If a zoo wants to be 100% smoke free, that's their choice. However, don't act high and mighty because you don't choose to. I think it's perfectly reasonable if a zoo has one or two designated smoking areas to accommodate visitors. Obviously, most zoos aren't going to allow free for all smoking or sell alcohol because they market themselves as family friendly. However, go to any of the social functions zoos are increasingly hosting and what will you likely see? A full bar and smoking.
Jimmy I cannot recall Chester ever being smoke free, but I could be wrong. I once went into an enclosure with a keeper (who shall remain nameless) who not only smoked, but offered me a cigarette as well. Lee Chester has always sold alcohol. I think the beer garden has been there for a long time. I don't smoke, but I have no problem with someone that does do so in an area where it is permitted. It is their choice.
A couple of people have mentioned the fact that if a particular individual chooses to smoke then that is their own decision and thus they can do whatever they want. Just to play the devil's advocate here, but what about the fact that because of people who smoke taxpayers have to fork over thousands of dollars in their lifetime to cover the health costs related to smoking deaths? Millions of people have died worldwide just in the past decade due to smoking-related causes, and in Canada there was a proposal a few years ago to charge those that smoke more fees with their health insurance. People with clean lungs are forced to pay for those that abuse the system and must seek treatment due to smoking, because in Canada 100% of the population is covered under the national health care plan. If it weren't for smokers everyone's fees would drop by about 30% per year, but the problem with the proposal (and why it eventually was not accepted) is that it is difficult to prove whether or not an individual does or does not smoke. Some people have black lungs and destroyed organs simply because they have lived inside a house with someone who smokes, or they work alongside a fellow smoker in a business establishment. In Province of British Columbia in Canada smoking is practically extinct. Every single public establishment (school grounds, zoos, universities, bars, pubs, restaurants, gardens, parks, etc) are all smoke-free and there is very little tolerance of smokers. Legislation was just passed in 2008 that cigarette packs are not allowed to even be visible in any shops, and so 7-11's, Mac's, and other corner stores have to hide the packs behind closed doors or thick curtains. However, I do realize that many parts of the world are still a long way away from such stringent regulation.
No I think you're right. It's probably because I notice smoking much more now than I did a few years ago.
This one's easy... I'm in with the "100% smoke-free" school of thought. Burning tobacco has no place in ANY zoo, primarily for the sake of the animals' health. I have absolutely no objection to smokers risking their own health on their own property, or in their own car. I have every objection to them, through secondary smoke, presenting increased health risks to those who didn't ask for it (human non-smokers), and those who cannot speak for themselves (the animals). In other terms: If they want to poison themselves, fine, but leave me and the inhabitants of whatever zoo or oceanarium I'm visiting out of it. Happy travels.
I would also like to see a 100% ban in all public areas - inside and out. Since the indoor smoking ban came into effect here in the UK, I think we notice smokers alot more - mainly because they congregate near the doors of buildings etc... and you have to pass through/past them. It's ironic though that at this time of year if we wanted to sit in the beer garden of our local Public houses we now have to do so with all the smokers which means the air quality is better inside the pub than out. And this is really annoying when the pub provides outdoor play areas for the children. I wonder if any zoo's sell cigerettes on site - if they have licenced bar facilities for example.(would be hard to ban smoking if they sell the stuff?). Also, how would a ban be policed? Disney World has smoking area's tucked out of sight, with plenty of signage about not smoking around the parks, but occassionally I've spotted visitors sneaking a crafty smoke else where.
This link declares that the Minnesota Zoo goes completely smoke free this weekend, meaning that now approximately 65% of all AZA-accredited zoos are either smoke free or they have designated smoking areas. How long will it be before ALL AZA-accredited zoos are 100% smoke free? Ten years? Anyone who wants to poison their body, look terrible, die younger and waste their money will have to do it off of zoo grounds. Minnesota Zoo goes smoke-free Saturday - Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal:
I personally think that zoos going completely smoke free is not the greatest decision they can make, yea its great for marketing of those smoke-free families. But I know there is a large population of people who smoke and being in a large zoo for hours on end would drive them insane without hacveing a smoke. So those people would sooner go somewhere else with their money and the zoo will lose business. I know people may think they will gain business from having a smoke free facility but families still go to zoos regardless. This is my opinion! Overall I think zoos should have designated smoking areas but never go completely smoke-free forever, unless there is a worldwide ban on tabacco.
