Why do we love zoos; a summary in stereotypes

I agree Tim, I think we're all a bit of a mixture. I'm predominantly a connoisseur x photographer cross, with an element of goliath as I love San Diego, and mega-zoos in general, if not exclusively.

I don't think I'm a proper nerd, as much as my friends and family might disagree. I am able to visit places with zoos I've not been to before and not go, so I can't be. But, I do like to add a new one every now and then, so there's a bit of me that is!

 

I would say I am most likely an idealist within these categories. As I like zoos that are truly unique or different, I think a bit of connoisseur as well.

While I like to see species I've never seen before, I can't say I'm a real species hunter. But zoos with a unique collection are certainly of interest to me.

This results in Walsrode being my favourite zoo (than again, I might be biased because I'm a bird enthousiast).

 

Heh, I can also see myself in most of the categories, so instead of choosing two or three which seems nigh-impossible, I'll try going through them point by point.

The species hunter
I guess this one fits me a lot of the time. Of course, zoo visits are not only about seeing new species, as I also have favorite species that I've seen many times before, but like to see again in new surroundings - but if I'm choosing between two zoos that both look good, I'll often choose the one with the most rare species.

The goliath
Well... Yes. This is my guilty pleasure and may be the category that fits me best. I love huge zoos even though us zoo nerds (and people in general) often seem to be expected to follow the good ol' "quality over quantity" adage - small zoos can definitely be cosy and pleasant, but I only get that "rush" of zoo visiting when I go to a zoo so big that I feel sure I'll have to spend the entire day there. Maybe it's some sort of "the grass is greener" effect because I live in a country that only has zoos with fairly small collections and in most cases small areas.

The historian
Seeing old zoos and soaking in their history is nice, but it's not a huge passion of mine. Despite many people complaining about all the rare species that the zoos of the present have lost, I'd rather visit a present day zoo with ABC's in good exhibits than go back in time to see rare species in cramped cages.

The connoisseur
Yes and no. I find that every zoo has its own unique atmosphere no matter what, so I rarely seek out zoos who are known for having unique atmospheres (unless they also appeal to my species hunter or goliath nature). But sometimes, I unexpectedly visit a zoo that happens to make me think "wow, that was special - so awesome" when I leave. I guess I have a connoisseur sleeping inside me, but he doesn't always wake up.

The specialist
One group of animals that I absolutely love - even though they tend to be overlooked by average visitors and even many Zoochatters - is waterfowl. If a zoo doesn't have at least a few duck, goose and swan species, its collection doesn't feel complete to me even if most other animal groups are well-represented. So yeah, I'd absolutely prioritize a zoo with a big waterfowl collection over one with no waterfowl if they both looked good. Of course, I have also many other animals I love, so I can easily enjoy a zoo even if it doesn't have waterfowl. Again, it may be a "the grass is greener" effect - almost all Danish zoos have minimal or non-existent waterfowl collections.

The erlebnis architect
I have to admit I'm pretty tacky here because I actually enjoy this kind of theming. I'm an unusual Zoochatter in that I liked Hannover Zoo a lot. Of course, everything can be overdone, but overdoing "erlebnises" is often through adding an unnecessary amount of playgrounds, often tearing down animal exhibits in the process.

The idealist
Of course, who isn't? I think everyone who is not 100 % against zoos has a bit of an idealist in them. That being said, part of my idealism comes from how I think zoos are doing a pretty good job already, so I'm not desperate for them to get better.

The photographer
I have taken lots of photos in zoos recent years, but my record is "only" around 700 pictures during a day, so I'm probably a nobody in that area compared to many Zoochatters. I've got an old and not too great camera, and my photographing skills aren't great, so I suck at taking "portrait photos" and close-ups of animals. I mostly take photos of the exhibits and surroundings to cherish the memories. I wouldn't choose a zoo just because it had great opportunities.

The home zoo hooligan
Not really. I don't really consider myself to have a "home zoo" as it takes some 50 minutes to drive to the nearest zoo. There are no zoos that I visit more than once a year because I like to visit zoos for the novelty of it - if it's not a new zoo, or if the old zoos doesn't have any new exhibits, it's not as interesting to me. I'd rather visit one of these zoos once every few years and then spend the entire day there instead of visiting it for a few hours every week. Maybe I would be different if my home zoo was something like Berlin Zoo and Bronx Zoo - a huge zoo that you can barely see in one day and constantly has small changes in exhibits and collection.

The nerd
Somewhat. I cannot go on vacation without checking for at least two zoos to visit. That being said, I have other interests when travelling, and walking around cities, visiting museums, hiking and so on often only leave room for two zoo visits. I wouldn't want to go on a week-or-longer trip to only see zoos - I'd get a zoo overload, and it would not be funny anymore. Zoos are better in moderation. That being said, I'm always excited in a perfectly childish way every time I'm going to visit a new zoo that looks interesting.

 

That is definately the case. I think with the more zoos visited the more a connoisseur one generally becomes, because zoos start looking the same after a while .

Personally my love for species hunting has significantly declined and the idealist has taken over

 

I see traits of my own ideology in most categories but I would rule myself out of the following three:-

The erlebnis architect - Theming of an exhibit doesn't do much for me. Yes it's a nice distraction to play on the jeep/crashed plane/boat but I'm not a child. I have kids that love these things but they don't notice if these elements are missing so I do fail to see the point from a personal view.

The Photographer - Never been one to take lots of pictures, even of unusual species. I have a crappy camera but it's fine for record shots and making memories. I would never go to a zoo just because they had decent photo ops.

And finally I've never been a home zoo hooligan because both of my home zoos are not great enough to warrant that much love. Both Dudley and Birmingham have a special place in my heart but there are too many zoos that p*ss all over them in so many other ways. Don't get me wrong, both are brilliant in my eyes but I'm not wearing blinkers...

 

Honestly I see myself in a mix between the specialist, home zoo hooligan, and architect, as I spend a large amount of time trying to think of how an exhibit can be improved or just design an exhibit

 

"erlebnis" is a German term for which there is not really an English translation, but a sort of Disney version of an exhibit sums it up quite well. Zoos that are big on "erlebnis" like Hannover, Wildlands and Valencia often look stunning to visitors with good gardening, lots of fake rock, nice viewpoints and optical illusions. There is also a tendency to put many cultural elements in to entertain the visitors. The animals are often only a second thought though, their enclosures may look nice at first sight, but are often not that suitable at all....

 

Hagenbeck's concept alone is not really erlebnis, and certainly not like he did it, though the erlebnis zoos have gotten some inspiration from them (most have a sightline with lions and hoofstock in one view....)

 

'adventure architecture'/'adventure zoo' might aptly capture the concept of 'Erlebnisarchitektur'/'Erlebniszoo'

 

Manchester Sea Life Centre makes you watch a animated sequence of sea turtles hatching before they will even let you enter the exhibit areas.

 

Would the typical "immersion" exhibit also classify as erlebnis as well? And if it does what about the (few but still notable) exhibits that actually perform immersion fairly well such as Houston's Giants of the Savanna or Bronx's Congo Gorilla Forest? Or on the other hand would these examples just constitute amazing exhibits.

 

Sounds a bit like Chester's 'Islands' development also....

 

I think I'm mostly a mixture of the species hunter and the nerd. I fit a bit into each category, but history, immersion, photography etc isn't necessarily why I will choose one zoo over another, I tend to go by what I can see where and what collections are new to me to help me decide, with the other aspects being secondary deciders. When away somewhere, I have another category which is 'for the sake of it,' where if a collection is where I am staying and we have the time to visit we will, but nothing would make me seek out that collection in the first place (case in point, SeaLife Berlin)

 

It depends on the individual exhibit, also in regard to the extent of ostentative anthropogenic decorative elements integrated in the exhibition - like rusty jeeps, planes etc.

 

I am probably a cross between the home-zoo hooligan and the idealist. Even though I am big fan of my home zoo, my favorite zoo is the National Zoo because of all the amazing science and research they do there, as well as the generally great habitats

 

I'm very much an idealist! I have species hunter tendencies as well.