For what it's worth, it's still within the past twelve months that I visited 56 European zoos, and I didn't particularly struggle to form or put forward my own views about them as I went. As for why I didn't include both Hannover and Gelsenkirchen: I noted in my first post that I had decided to cap Germany at 16 spots, because I thought a quarter of the field was quite enough for one country. Gelsenkirchen isn't the only prominent German collection to miss out: so did Dortmund, Karlsruhe, Erfurt, Augsburg and others. I'm not going to go back and forth indefinitely, ANyhuis. I've heard your criticism of the choices, and I'm sure whoever does a second such competition will take it on board then.
Maybe I should change it back to one of my former signatures. "I'm a member of PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals" was the previous one I think.
I find it somewhat amusing that you labour under the impression that we just don't like collections which are aimed at children and families when you yourself posted with implied contempt about the idea of people preferring Amersfoort (a collection which is very much aimed at children from what I observed) to Wildlands. The other factor you are not considering is the fact that Wildlands has replaced what was a long-standing and well-loved collection on the continent - perhaps even you would agree that if somewhere like Bronx Zoo, Cincinnati Zoo or Philadelphia Zoo was closed down tomorrow and replaced with a sister site for Disney's Animal Kingdom you would feel some sense of loss? Theming done well is one thing, and something I can happily get behind. Theming done badly, for the sake of theming and giving the strong feeling of something plastic and false.... that is the problem it's all well and good saying that trying to make visitors feel like they are in another part of the world is a laudable aim, but when the part of the world which the visitors end up feeling they are in tends to be Walt Disney World - even if the intention was for Indonesia, India, the Amazon or so forth - something has gone wrong.
I guess @korhoen and I made that very clear! I guess several Zoochatters like me have a dislike (with "strong distaste" being too strong a term) for zoos that overdo theming, sometimes at the expense of the animals, the animal collection or historic buildings. Lots of theming doesn't automatically result in great theming. I've heard few people complain about the well-executed but heavily themed Pandasia in Ouwehands, while the overdone theming in Wildlands seems to cause a lot of annoyance. Call me boring but a rollercoaster (Wildlands will open one soon ) just doesn't belong in a zoo for me (eventhough I like rollercoasters). Amersfoort is probably the most aimed at children of all the major Dutch zoos in my opinion. To the point of annoyance actually (you know, like play grounds within the enclosures!). That doesn't make it a bad zoo: I really enjoyed the new wolf-area and the huge aviary (if it wasn't for a small construction mistake that results in many crashing pelicans). I think this sums it up nicely.
I liked it quite a lot too the nocturnal house and the small museum of preserved specimens were two other highlights!
The only problem I have with zoos that aim their exhibits at children is that it inevitably means I have to encounter a higher proportion of children on my visit, which I generally find quite unpleasant.
While I bet most people on here like well-themed exhibits, so many exhibits all over the world have themed exhibits that are plastic, tacky and horrible (others have already pointed this out). A dislike of mine is when zoos over-theme their exhibits and it just becomes a big, clunky mess (Disney Animal Kingdom definitely over-themes but as they have so much money it isn't too bad). Another problem with "theming" is when the theme encroaches the animals habitat. A perfect example is DAK's Tiger habitat, where the "ruined temple" theme is so prevalent that the Tigers get a fairly poor habitat. I am of the mindset that people come to zoos to see animals, not to see money and space wasted on "African Villages" and "Mayan Ruins". Does anyone really believe that though? This illusion is lost as soon as visitors pay money at the front gate, eat at the zoo restaurant or browse through the gift shop. I am all for naturalistic enclosures, but I'm against spending millions of dollars for the visitors to feel like they're in southeast Asia or the Amazon (most of the time the zoo fails and it ends up looking neither good, nor like that part of the world). That same millions spent on temples and teepees could be used to help animals in the wild or upgrade outdated parts of the zoo. Of course zoos shouldn't be like theme parks! If someone wants a theme park atmosphere than go to one! If someone wants to learn more about animals and how to protect them then go to a zoo. The day where zoos are overrun by simulators and roller-coasters will be a sad one for me. Are you seriously saying that zoos should have an emphasis of entertainment over education! Zoos like that that (SeaWorld, DAK) are definitely not high on my list while zoos like Bronx might not be as "entertaining" but in my opinion they're a heck of a lot better than the places I've just mentioned. After all, what's the point of a zoo if not too educate people about the plight of animals in the wild? In my opinion a zoo that's animals are just a diversion from the 4-D theaters or the rollercoasters can not be world class or even great. World class for entertainment DAK may be, but a world class zoo it is not.
I hope that my alternate views on this subject have not been insulting to anyone. I think my differing views come from the fact that I am a guidebook author, I write guidebooks (about zoos) for travelers who are likely not big fans of zoos, like most ZooChat members. The readers of my books are usually lovers of animals, usually young families with children, and are often very loyal supporters of their own local zoo. But most of my readers, when first buying my book, do not venture out and visit other zoos, as they feel going to their own local zoo is good enough -- and they tend to think "all zoos are the same" (or mostly the same). That is the goal of my books, to convince these folks that zoos are often quite different, and it is truly worth a day or two of their vacation/holiday to actually visit an out-of-town zoo. What I often say is that I'm trying to convince that family driving on the interstate/expressway that a zoo would be worth them pulling off the highway and spending some vacation time there. This is the reason I'm looking for something different, or even unique. This is why I'm a huge fan of Disney's Animal Kingdom -- it's an entirely unique experience, and sorry TZDugong, but I think DAK's exhibits are near-perfect. But I understand that most of you here on ZooChat are not guidebook authors. Your criteria for rating zoos is thus different. You are rating based on what's good for what SnowLeopard calls a "zoo nerd" -- one who has likely already visited 50-100 or more zoos in their lifetime. To such a person, I fully understand that rides and special attractions are distractions from what you really want to see, which is primarily the animals. I understand that. With all of the above being said, I still think your competition needs Kolmarden! Without it, you are ignoring Sweden, which quite honestly has Scandinavia's best zoo. As for your final question, DZDugong, I am a fan of Walt Disney's famous quote, "I would rather entertain and hope that people learned something than educate people and hope they were entertained." Disney understood the basic economics that if you don't entertain people, they will not likely return -- and not likely continue to contribute to the zoo's finances. But if you do entertain them, you can then also educate them. Education doesn't have to be obvious, it can be subtle.
I believe zoos need a balance between entertainment and education, and that in many situations more entertainment is more useful for zoos. Education is the primary purpose of a zoo, that's why we have zoos, but if the zoo does not draw enough visitors with entertainment then as ANyhuis said it will struggle to finance itself. On top of that, the less number of people who come in, the less number of people get educated. I am not very familiar with DAK, but Sea World has done a very good job of this in recent years. The roller coasters, rides, and shows bring people from around the country in where they all get the message of protecting our oceans repeated over and over and over again whilst being entertained. This causes them to come back and bring others back because of the entertainment, not the message, though this causes the message to spread and become stronger. Whenever I visit San Antonio, the Sea World is always filled to the brim with non locals who are funding the park, enjoying themselves so that they may return, AND gaining the education zoos strive to give. The San Antonio Zoo on the other hand is not nearly as packed and is filled by more locals than it is non locals. The San Antonio zoo is still a fantastic zoo which is able to fund itself and spread its message because they put some emphasis on entertainment which brings people in, just not to the scale Sea World does. In essence, because of the emphasis sea world puts on entertaining rides and shows over education, they are able to become much more effective in educating the public than a zoo which puts less effort in entertaining it's visitors. There are exceptions of course, zoos like San Diego gain visitors due to the prestige and famous nature to the zoo, which allows them to put more emphasis on education. However, keep in mind even the San Diego Zoo invests heavily in entertainment with rides and two 4-D theaters.
I think everybody has slightly different motivations for visiting a zoo, and therefore different expectations of what they should come away having experienced. Of course, everybody goes to see animals to some extent - but whether that is the main purpose or not, and to what degree that is important, varies greatly. It’s a very subjective thing, trying to decide on which zoos are best, or better. Everybody will have a differing opinion based upon what meets their personal needs best. Definitely, one size does not fit all. I’m sure zoos recognise this too, and try to expand their appeal wherever possible. As long as the zoo has a decent sun bear exhibit with good viewing, then my primary need is met - yet to most people, this wouldn’t matter one jot. Then I can get on with addressing my secondary needs, which include a good mix of other interesting species to enjoy viewing, nicely constructed, appropriate and well maintained exhibits, somewhere pleasant to eat and a good gift shop amongst other things. I personally don’t mind zoos having rides or theatres or anything like that - it’s probably not something I would have the time to partake in myself, but it’s fine if it brings people in and helps to make the place a success.
If only it were a second DAK it would be more loved. The problem is that a large part of the general public also doesn't like WIldlands. It is just not a good zoo and not a good themepark and just something in between. Yes the enclosures are of relatively high quality, but the number of species shown is extremely limited and also very much limited to the most standard of ABC's. The attractions are also nowhere near the level of American parks, so it just fails quite miserably in what it is saying to do. This is also reflected in how well loved the zoo is by locals and already in their second year of operation they failed to get the needed visitor numbers... Their director just continues saying that people still have to get used to this "new idea of a zoo", but maybe the director should get used the ideas of the paying public...
The idea that people visit zoos for 'education', rather than entertainment is a convenient fiction to keep animal rights campaigns at bay. They are *all* in the leisure industry to some great or lesser degree. I don't have a problem with that because the positive externalities are worth it. But we shouldn't gild the lily about what zoos are. They're a specific type of theme park.
We're a couple of days away from our first results, so I'm about to post our next polls. Our next bracket of eight is... Doue-la-Fontaine v Cotswold Magdeburg v Munich Barcelona v Dresden Tallinn v Vienna (8) The categories will be revealed in each poll thread. Just a note of housekeeping, though: I've reconsidered the 'fish/inverts' category on the basis that there's too great a chance of lopsided contests purely by virtue of one zoo having an aquarium and the other not. I don't want to discard them entirely, though, so I'm going to turn the as-yet unused 'reptile & amphibian' category into a broader one that encompasses all animals that are neither mammals or birds. I think that'll lead to better results.
(I may revert back to splitting the categories once we're a couple of rounds in, btw. By the time a zoo is in the last 16 or so they should be up for the contest no matter what it is. In the meantime I don't want to many outright thrashings.)
Coming soon. I think doing two at a time is a good balance between keeping things ticking and not drowning each thread. The first two matches close tonight (my time), and #7 and #8 will be up after that.
Our first results are hours away (though not particularly suspenseful), and a quarter of the draw has been revealed. One of the 16 zoos named thus far will be playing off in a semi-final. Apart from the six remaining seeds (both Berlins, Zurich, Chester, Burgers and Plzen), there's a huge number of dangerous unseeded floaters loitering about: Rotterdam, Frankfurt, Nuremberg, Cologne, Leipzig, Beauval, Wroclaw and Basel are all out there somewhere.
First I did not really understand this. Now I do and I think this is a great idea. Thanks for having it!
