I agree, not "completely" -- but they should focus on children FIRST. On the other hand, the other demographics shouldn't be so easily alienated. I see examples of this every time I ride an airplane. As soon as a baby starts crying and screaming, haughty child-haters start sneering, rolling their eyes, glaring at the poor mother, and sometimes even openly complaining and making the mom feel like a second-class citizen. We should all learn a bit more tolerance. We were all children once. Here's the problem with that logic: When you were younger (and me too), zoos were more of the "managerie" (or stamp collection) variety, with small cages keeping the animals "up close" and in view -- guaranteed! With today's natural habitat immersion exhibits, such up-close encounters cannot be guaranteed. But of course, there is also the factor that today's children are simply more "high tech" and media-driven, thus they demand more complicated ways of being entertained. We can wring our hands about how "bad" this is and how we shouldn't cater to these "spoiled kiddies", or can simply respond to the realities and try to do both -- provide a zoo that attracts children and one that is also attractive for genuine animal-lovers. That's too bad. But even if everyone who is childless follows your example, they're only losing about 20% of their potential audience. On the other hand, if they don't focus on children, up to 80% of their customer base is at risk.
Well I'm 18, so "when i was younger" referred to 6-8 years ago when the menagerie attitude had all but disappeared (with a few exceptions) The example I gave regarding the Jaguar (not in a small cage at all, but by a large glass window in a realistic large densley planted enclosure) is what zoos should be doing to market themselves. They need to be capitalising on the "awe-factor" that charismatic zoo animals can create. Elephants, apes, monkeys, big cats, sealions etc all hold star power and do not require a gimmick to be attractive to children (and adults). These are the drawcards which bring in the casual visitors and hopefully a zoo's conservation message will be imprinted during their day. A child will be captivated at the sight of a fully-cohesive family unit of monkeys. They can relate to the parental and young figures in a troop and obviously enjoy their antics and behaviour. From some observations i've made, it's often the parents who become bored when watching animals and move on to the next exhibit. Playgrounds, splash pools, monorails etc are ok as "sideshows" but if that is the sole reason that parents bring their child to the zoo, then that particular zoo is failing in certain aspects.
LOL!!! Oops, my bad!! I obviously was assuming we were talking about a bit further back. But still, even in the last 6-8 years, kids now have more and more high tech distractions, making simple pleasures (like that jaguar or monkey family) less attractive. In just those 6-8 years, things like Ipods, MP3 players, texting phones, TV phones, and other such things have become very popular. Back when you (CZJimmy) "were younger", these things were barely heard of, if at all. My opinion is that we shouldn't judge the parents on why they bring their kids to the zoo. If they bring them, great; if they don't, bad! No matter the reason they come, they will -- by absorption -- gain some appreciation for the animals and be educated about them, at least a little. I've had family members come along with me to Disney's Animal Kingdom and they came ONLY for the rides and the Disney shows, not caring at all about seeing any animals. (They said so.) But while with me, they rode along with me on the incredible Kilamanjaro Safari adventure, simply because it was a "fun ride". So while it wasn't their intention, they ended up being exposed to the magnificance and beauty of seeing 30+ African species in the most natural and authentic African savanna in the USA. I watched them and smiled as they shot over a dozen photos of beautiful antelope, rhinos, giraffes, elephants, and more. So did Disney "fail" in the case of these family members of mine? I don't think so. In fact I think they represent a tremendous success.
I think you are underestimating a child's attention span. If it catches their attention in the first place then you'll be surprised how long they'll be fascinated by it (even in this "high-tech" era). One of the most popular hotspots for kids at Chester isn't a high-tech info board, it isn't a playground, it is a bronze statue of a baby elephant. The simple way is often a good way in terms of the pre-teens. Regarding Disney, I see that as a seperate case. As you rightly point out, many people go purely because it is packaged with the other Disney parks in terms of marketing and therefore go for the rides first (even though the animal sections are top-class). As far as I'm aware, you wouldn't go to DAK like you would go to your local zoo and if people were going to a local zoo primarily for the playground or whatever, then that local zoo hasn't done enough to showcase it's animals to "captivate it's audience".
I can't disagree. Though I doubt that hardly anyone goes to a local zoo just for the playground, as that would be an awfully expensive playground! Then again, even I -- the zoo book author -- remember taking my very young children to the zoo, where they would spend 75% of their time splashing and playing in a special fountain at the front of the Indianapolis Zoo. But here's why -- we were family members! Members can afford to do frivilous things like go to the zoo just to play in a fountain. Is that bad? On other visits we'd observe the animals or take in a dolphin show.
Well said, CZJimmy. A refreshing statement indeed but remember you are among the 1% or less who had a developing strong interest in animals/zoos to start with. But I do agree with you that the animals should still be the foremost reason for people to visit the zoo and not the sideshow attractions that seem to be creeping in more and more. For your information, Drusillas is not a bad little collection but would not take you very long to get around(half an hour?) as the playground aspect is by far the major aspect-no complaint with that as they've always marketed themselves as a childrens' 'attraction.'
Here we go again... @Anyhuis: no offence, but as just a friendly(!) word of advice: what about adding just the phrase "in my[=your] opinion" from now on if you make DAK(or similar) laudations? Therebye, it wouldn't sound that much like a rather hubristic truth claim that ignores that some people do not agree with this assumption of yours. TIA for your understanding. Attendance figures as a sign of quality? I already mentioned several examples why quantity does not have to equal quality, especially in regard to zoos-so they do "lie"... Should children really come first in everything, especially if a zoo wants to become a serious cultural institution? I don't think so; nevertheless, they should play an important part. Funny enough, you mentioned an important aspect one should consider for the future of zoos: "Only in Arizona, a place filled with old retirees, could ASDM survive." As I wrote before: demographics are changing worldwide. More and more people become older and older, while less children are born-at least in the 1st World to the middle and higher classes (the ones mainly financing the zoos). This will lead to more places "filled with old retirees" (one could imply an ageist attitude of yours here...). There will be less kids, but more old people-and quite a bunch of them love visiting zoos on a very regular basis, and usually form a majority among private zoo sponsors. Maybe zoos are going to have to embrace the needs of these customers (certainly not a "tiny minority") to stay competitive. If that means more serious institutions like the ADM (wonderful, indeed) and less amusement parks, the better! If children want to play with high tech toys, there should be plenty to alternatives to a zoo-whose "heart & soul" are the animals, and the people-animal interface. Given the current financial crisis, one might doubt that commercialism/"economic reality" is always such a good thing ...especially if it ends with the zoo losing its personality.
Can't particularly argue with the last paragraph regarding membership, however there must have been something animal related at Indianapolis Zoo to persuade you to originally sign up for their membership scheme? One of my points was that the sideshow attractions (monorails, playgrounds, ziplines, golf courses, water parks etc) should take a back seat when it comes to marketing the zoo. They should be something that you discover halfway through your day at the zoo when attention may be waning and can be used as devices to make a family's stay longer, but should not be the main draw.
Here we don't go again! If you want to descend to name-calling and insults, that's up to you. I'm not going to play!! You're welcome -- and thanks for the advice. But it was really unnecessary as IF you'll re-read my "laudation", you'll see that it is well qualified, as: Here are a couple of those "many sources": The World's Best Zoos - ForbesTraveler.com The 10 Best Zoos in the World Add in me and you've already got 3 published sources claiming DAK as one of the WORLD's best zoos! My point is NOT that this automatically makes it one of the world's best, but if it's a "nominee" for world's best, then what does that say about it as one of America's best?? Interesting point! But you're going to have to wait a LOT of years before the elderly outnumber children! Realistically, as the population ages and fewer babies are born, this will only mean that the percentage of zoo visitors will go down slightly -- from the current 75% (or so) to maybe 65% or 55%. Children (and their parents) will still be the main draw. Take your own advice and say "In my opinion". Not everyone agrees with you on this! OK, following your advice: "In my opinion", whenever zoos follow "economic reality" -- that IS always a good thing!!! "In my opinion", the so-called "commercialism" has had nothing to do with the current financial crisis! Nothing!
@Anyhuis: Shall we start to remember who started the constant quips ("our friend") and tried to depict me as an asocial, communist and unworldy child-hater? Better not...we want to spare Sim the labour, don't we? About "qualification": I somehow doubt that "Forbes" or "RATestoGo" are qualified for a solid and factual estimation of zoos, especially on behalf of zoo biology and professional modern animal husbandry/zoo management. "Published" doesn't mean anything these days, as almost everyone can publish almost everything. About your qualification- I already wrote/asked my part. Obviously, given the constant quotation, my advice wasn't unnecessary at all. Hopefully, you stick with it. I don't think the percentage of zoo visitors will go down, given the already mentioned fascination of some part of the senior population with zoos. And if the zoos start to focus more on them as potential clients, children might not longer be the main target audience in some institutions. Do we really have to wait that long? Not really, especially in certain parts of Europe, and Asia (Japan). Why should I "take my own advice"? You yourself called it "wonderful". "OK, following your advice: "In my opinion", whenever zoos follow "economic reality" -- that IS always a good thing!!! "In my opinion", the so-called "commercialism" has had nothing to do with the current financial crisis! Nothing! " Yeah, that's surely your opinion...especially in this constant battology. Personally, I tend to disagree. Well, enough straying away from the topic.
Wow, you're offended that I referred to you as "our friend". Again, Wow! And I never "depicted" you as anything -- merely pointed out how you were making yourself look. (And I always said I didn't buy into that self-perception you gave yourself.) I'm also certain I never used the words "asocial", "communist", or "unworldly". Funny!!!! But I'll apologize just in case I said anything similar. And I'll apologize for calling you "friend". Didn't know that was such an insult to you. They (especially Forbes) are VERY qualified as travel advice sites. That's what they are, travel sites. No, they weren't going into the deep world of "zoo biology" or (your favorite word) "husbandry" -- merely offering what they think are the Top 10 Zoos in the world -- for travelers. Quite frankly that is MY qualification too, despite your insult. I was referring to your "less amusement parks, the better" part of your quote. Not everyone agrees with you on that, so take your own advice and say "In my opinion". I personally would love to see a few more DAK-type zoos around the world. But that's "just my opinion".
That's one amazing thing. You take children to the zoo or museum, they pay absolutely no attention, and 20 years later - POP! - they recall everything and become nature lovers.
Another thing about children: their eyes are smaller. They best see things which are much smaller and closer than grown-ups. Zoos forget it. Normal pre-schooler will be more preoccupied by a ladybug close by, than by giraffe far away. In practice, zoos could do very well by making small exhibits of small animals (insects, frogs, rodents) at children eye-level. And of course touch sessions with small things - insects, lizards, rodents etc. Too many zoos instead follow adult's misconception about children. They bring animals which are cute. Not - these are for adult women! Children are ones which love to catch beetles and tadpoles in jam jars.
I don't want to get involved in any arguments with people 'cos I'm just going to say how Melbourne Zoo (and probably many other older Zoos) has an historic carousel that's been at the Zoo since the early 1960's. It was built in the 1800's and travelled with shows but has stayed at the Zoo since the 60's and restored to it's former glory about 4 or 5 years ago. This is Melbourne Zoos only playground-esque attraction but is extremely popular with families.
@ANyhuis: Oh please-as if only I saw the "baiting" and canting in that...I accept your apology-if it is not as tokenistic as the so-called "friendship". Did I insult you? Or did I make clear what the parameters are that I think are important to be able to judge a zoo? "Travelers" is a very ambigious term. So calling them "Top 10 zoos" is an equally ambigious thing-as those zoos might not qualify for the standards of all travelers. You might have other standards travelling as I have... Is it "just your opinion" or really just your opinion? After all, having more ADM-like institutions should be a good thing even for you-as you called the ADM "wonderful", didn't you? And there is still a lot of room in this world for wonderful things... So what exactly did this last post of yours contribute to the discussion? Probably just like this post of mine: nothing. It just continued our constant strife over the obvious fact that we disagree about several things. For the sake of this and other threads, as well as the patience of the moderators and fellow readers, I'd thus recommend to limit the mutual snarling at each other on PMs -or let it be completely. To tell the truth, I see nothing good coming out of that... Agreed? Ok, then back to the orginal topic: more playgrounds and non-animal attractions in zoos: yes or no? For the senior citizen aspect, another thread could be opened.
Hey, I'm ALREADY there! No baiting or snarling on my part, and I don't even know what "canting" is! Sorry, but "travelers" is not an ambiguous term! Maybe things are different over there in Europe, but here in the USA we have many leading travel books (Rick Steves, Lonely Planet, etc.), dozens of "travel" magazines, travel websites, and even a Travel Channel cable network. Forbes Traveler is one of the leading travel websites, respected by many. So when they list Disney's Animal Kingdom as among the Top 15 zoos in the world, there is some weight to that. Sure, it's only their opinion, but many, many travelers respect their opinion and follow it. Sure, I said ASDM is wonderful -- a wonderfully unique zoological park, and honestly, it should remain unique. It works in the retiree-mecca that is Southern Arizona, but it's not a formula that would likely work anywhere else in the USA. The place has no carousel, no train, and not even any kind of children's zoo. Without hardly anything for children (who along with their parents represent 80% of the regular base attending America's zoos), an ASDM-type park has little chance of success elsewhere. See above. In Southern Arizona -- maybe; Elsewhere -- no. Here's another example for you: Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo in the late 1970s & early 1980s. Back then they had a Director who, like some on this site, believed zoos should stop catering to children. So the Zoo shut down its carousel, eliminated its train ride, pony ride, and almost everything else that was especially for children. Meanwhile, the Zoo also was creating some revolutionary and great new exhibits -- the historic outdoor gorilla habitat, African Savanna, and others. BUT, despite these great new naturalistic exhibits, attendance at the Zoo plummeted. Eventually this Director, under pressure from the City, was "allowed" to resign. Now Woodland Park has a great children's area and a beautiful historic carousel -- and attendance is much better.
Alton Towers, Probably the UK biggest theme park, has just added an aquarium. That’s the trouble with today’s high-tech kids; all they want is fish fish fish!
Interesting! The same thing has happened at the USA's LegoLand theme park in Southern California -- they recently added an aquarium. They did the interesting thing of including Lego characters inside some of the fish tanks -- a popular thing to do for the children.
We have a Legoland in the UK; no aquarium there yet. The one at Alton Towers has the name "Sharkbait Reef" and is run by the Sealife company. From what I remember of it, the aquaria are typically done out with fluorescently painted artificial corals and the public areas decorated with badly modelled giant sea creatures. I always imagine a walk through three dimensional clown's vomit would be similar to a trip to a sealife centre.
I think your disdain for "this Director" has gotten the best of you, as your history is rather shaky. Woodland Park did not have a carousel in the 1970s, offered pony rides continuously until about 2004, improved and expanded its Childrens' Zoo area during "his" tenure and saw attendance grow modestly from 1978 until the 1990s, long after "his" departure. Yes, an area of aging, tacky "kiddie rides" was demolished to make way for the brilliant (even "entertaining!") Savanna exhibit, but I think otherwise the facts have gotten in the way of your argument here.
