Here's a link to my source that says they discontinued the carousel and pony ride: Seattle's changing values as seen through the zoo >> "Out went the train, the pony ride, the merry-go-round, the concrete, and the steel mesh." Actually, after I wrote this (very late) last night, I wondered about that attendance thing. My source on that is an insider in the zoo world who knows former Woodland Park employees. The actual thing I was told is that Seattle city officials were very upset with this Director over removing all things related to children, and when they approached him on this, his response was, "That's tough!" But I admit this is second-hand info from me. I may be just assuming that the attendance dropped, and if so, I apologize. But I'm still looking for attendance figures online. Do YOU happen to have them? When you say they "saw attendance grow modestly from 1978 until the 1990s", can you source this? One reason I guess I assumed this is because I find it amazing that Portland's Oregon Zoo has consistently enjoyed, year after year, a huge attendance advantage over Woodland Park (even today). Portand is only 2 hours away from Seattle, and it has only half the population -- yet the Oregon Zoo is (by far) the Northwest's most attended zoo. By the way, the main reason I have any "disdain" for this Director is because of his anti-zoo actions in working with PETA and IDA. As the expression goes, he is "sleeping with the enemy".
By the way, this post had nothing to do with whatever my feelings are for this "Director", which is why I've not given his name. My only point was what happens when you close down all things (carousel, train, pony ride) meant for children.
Haven't found anything solid yet, but the following link (from WPZ), page 3: http://www.zoo.org/zoo_info/neighbors/pdf_bin/nn_nov05.pdf >> "Over the five-year period from 1980 to 1984, annual zoo attendance averaged approximately 740,000. Twenty years later, taking into account the five-year period from 2000 to 2004, average annual attendance has increased 68% to over 1.1 million per year." So attendance was pretty low back then. If it was, as Reduakari says, "growing modestly", it would have REALLY been low prior to 1978. Note also the huge attendance increase AFTER 1984.
This has turned into an interesting debate about Woodland Park Zoo, which I am obviously famliar with (see the ZooChat gallery photos) and thus I'd like to addess a few things. The zoo is famous for its many award-winning exhibits, and even if some individuals argue that the AZA-awards are a little suspect (and that has some validity) there is no denying the number of brilliant animal enclosures at the zoo. In 1979 the first ever naturalistic gorilla exhibit on the planet opened in Seattle, and the 1976 long-range plan is seen as the begining of a new, immersion-rich zoo experience that was sometimes copied all around the globe at many different zoos. Quite often the late 1970's and early 1980's (long-range plan in '76, gorillas in '79, African Savanna in '80, snow leopards in '82) is regarded as the heyday of the zoo. I beg to differ, as in reality it was the late 1980's and into the mid-1990's where this zoo really blossomed with new exhibits. Elephant Forest in 1989, Tropical Rainforest in 1992, Northern Trail in 1994 and Trail of Vines in 1995 ALL won AZA Best Exhibit awards, which then placed the Woodland Park Zoo at # 2 behind only the Bronx in that category. Between 1989 and 1995 there was also an animal hospital, gift shop and education center built, and everything was just over $50 million. Wow, how costs have escalated since then! The kid-friendly elements of Woodland Park Zoo are still there, even though the pony ring was phased out about 5-6 years ago. The difference with this Seattle zoo is that all of the children areas are separate from any of the exhibits, and it is possible to stroll around the zoo and not realize that it is a child-based attraction at all. There is a "Habitat Playground" near the Temperature Forest zone, but it is behind a low wall and set apart from the walking trail. That playground is entirely outdoors and it has "burrows" for kids to tunnel through, a giant "spider web" for climbing, and various bridges and naturalistic items to climb on. There is the "Family Farm" which is in the same area, but again it is separate from any major walking trails. I fully admit that the zoo has become more kid-friendly in the past few years, as "Willawong Station" opened in 2005 (feed budgies and lorikeets for a dollar), "Zoomazium" in 2006 ($10 million all-indoor playground) and the "Historic Carousel" also in 2006. The best part of these 3 new attractions is that they are all tastefully done and do not interfer with the promotion of the zoo as a serious, conservation-minded establishment. The historic carousel is at the top of the North Meadow and far away from any animal exhibits, "Willawong Station" is a small, enclosed building that muffles the excitement of children, and "Zoomazium" is spectacular and environmentally friendly but again is totally enclosed and thus children can yell and scream to their heart's content without annoying anyone passing by outside. Three great kiddie attractions, and all three are far apart from animal exhibits and the noise is contained for everyone else walking by. That is much different from countless other zoos I could name, where it seems as if rollercoasters, rides, playgrounds, etc are all much too close to animals in enclosures and humans wanting a small degree of serenity. I feel as if Woodland Park has fairly recently branched out and accepted that children are a massive part of both their present and future, but the zoo has managed to create three kiddie attractions that are TASTEFULLY constructed. Also, within the past few years brilliant habitats for jaguars and penguins have been erected for the zoo lover who appreciates naturalistic, award-worthy exhibits. Everyone wins! As far as attendance is concerned, before the historic 1976 long-range plan the zoo averaged just over 600,000 visitors a year, and then attendance shot up with all of the exciting, naturalistic enclosures that were created to about 800,000. I don't have any data that shows attendance between the mid-1980's and early 1990's, but since the flurry of new exhibits in the early 1990's for the past 15 years the zoo regularly has received about a million visitors a year, and in 2008 there were 1.1 million visitors at the zoo. Interestingly enough, the Oregon Zoo has staggering attendance numbers, and in 9 of the past 11 years the all-time attendance record has been broken at that zoo. In 2008 there were 1.6 million visitors to the zoo in Portland. I would guess that 9 out of 10 ZooChatters who have been to both zoos would agree that while Oregon has some nice exhibits overall Woodland Park is easily the better all-around zoo. So why is Oregon so popular? One factor is that the "Christmas Lights Festival" significantly bolsters their numbers each December, and that is something that Woodland Park does not do. Also, there are far more tourist attractions in Seattle (Space Center, Seattle Art Museum, waterfront restaurants, Seattle Aquarium, Experience Music Project & Sci-Fi Museum, Point Defiance Zoo & Aquarium in Tacoma, Museum of Flight, Museum of Glass, Argosy Cruise Lines, etc) than in Portland.
I believe the 1976 Long Range Plan references the baseline attendance number at the time being 600,000. I won't argue that having carousels and the like may draw more guests, but without the complete shift in thinking represented by the Long Range Plan and the exhibits built under it (which of course extended well beyond "his" departure in 1983), it's likely that the environmentally-conscious community of Seattle would have rejected the zoo as an anachronism (see current situation in San Francisco). It's all about balance.....
Nice summary, SnowLeopard. I do congratulate Woodland Park for trying to accomodate both sides. Sorry folks, but I still wonder WHY the "excitement of the children" needs to be "muffled"? Why is it that when children "yell and scream to their heart's content" that might "annoy anyone passing by"? Why do humans need separation from children to get a "small degree of serenity"? I guess I just love children and love to hear them enjoying themselves -- am I "weird" in this? I honestly don't think the Christmas Lights are a major factor in Portand's huge attendance advantage. Almost all zoos have a Christmas lights program -- I'm surprised Woodland Park does not. And while you list all of the other attractions in Seattle, one reason for this is because Seattle is much more of a tourist magnet than Portand. Thus Woodland Park SHOULD have 2 big "people" advantages -- twice the population and a lot more visiting tourists. But it's not like Portand has no other attractions. I think the only Seattle-area attractions you listed that might have an effect are the Seattle Aquarium and Point Defiance Zoo (and perhaps Northwest Trek). These 3 might be hurting Woodland Park's attendance numbers a little bit. Despite this, Portand's attendance numbers are indeed impressive. Portand is up there with Omaha, Columbus, and Toledo in its per capita support for their local zoo.
@ANyhuis: you always come across as amazed that not everyone likes kids...haha. It is true that many people don't plan on having children, as proven by an article in the Vancouver Province newspaper on Monday. Canada as a nation has a fertility rate of 1.54, arguably the lowest it has ever been since the country was formed in 1867. I love kids, my wife and I are having kids, I'm a high school teacher and she is an elementary school teacher...but lots of our friends have zero kids and don't plan on having any. Zoos must incorporate both sides of the coin, and I think that we can agree that Woodland Park has done that splendidly. There are loads of naturalistic exhibits for the hardcore zoo fans, plus they opened 3 kiddie areas within the space of 18 months (Willawong Station, Zoomazium, Historic carousel). I'm sure that many people are thankful that those child-friendly areas are not right next to the jaguars, gorillas, elephants, orangutans, etc, and there is nothing wrong in separating the animals from screaming munchkins. In fact, one could argue that the new, $6.5 million Humboldt penguin habitat is kid-friendly, as penguins are enormously popular with young children. As far as the Oregon Zoo is concerned, it is amazing and almost perplexing how the community within Portland has embraced their zoo. To break the all-time attendance record for 9 of the past 11 years is astonishing, and the high number of new exhibits has definitely helped with the latest total of 1.6 million visitors. This year's "Predators of the Serengeti" and "Red Ape Reserve" will be an excellent one-two punch of new enclosures, while the $125 million bond for the future (polar bears, 6-acre elephant paddock, chimpanzees) means that this zoo has an extremely bright future. The only major problem with so many visitors is that the parking situation there is atrocious, and so a large-scale parking garage might be constructed in the future.
Having ducked out of posting on Zoochat a few months back, I hope i will be permitted to add my two penn'orth to this fascinating debate. I write as someone who, like most on this forum, has an unusual interest in zoos, and therefore a greater desire to see different species of genet or mongoose than perhaps is seen in the average member of the public. But I also write as a father of four young children, and as a teacher who has taken groups of children to various different zoos. i also write as someone who, today, saw london Zoo's new 'Animal Adventure' for the first time... and there was a thing. It is my opinion that zoos should be serious places. If 'fun' means running around whooping loudly, paying little attention to the animals on show, learning very little - then, no thank you. Why is that art museums and other such cultural instituions appeal to millions - including milliosn of families with young children - without the need for being crazy, wacky, all-singing, all-dancing bundles of hyperactive 'fun'? My idea of fun is something which is done well, which is done professionally, which is done with integrity. I don't dislike the idea of theme parks et al, but i do not think they should be mixed with zoos. If I want to go to a theme park, i'll do so. if I want to go to a zoo, i'll do so. This calls to mind what has happened with public libraries in this country. Books have been taken away, and replaced with cafes, computers and, erm, fun. I recently turned up at my local library with my children - to get some books, funnily enough - to be asked if I was there for the 'Baby Boogie'. I wanted to kill someone. But maybe I'm wrong. maybe the small minority of us who are more interested in mongooses than rollercoasters should accept that we are swimming against the tide. Maybe the views posited by ANyhuis above represent the only forward. But I don't think so, and I'll throw out several pieces of evidence ot suggest why this is so... In Europe, zoos which see themselves as serious places, which welcome children and families but which do not pander to the lowest common denominator, regularly attract very high crowds. I'm thinking especially of zoos in Germany, Switzerland, Holland. Zurich Zoo, for example, is a place which is very 'fun', but the fun comes from the brilliant animals, brilliantly presented. Not from something which feels like a children's birthday party after the Ritalin has run out (which was rather the feeling I got at ZSL's frankly pretty tacky 'fun' animal area today). David Simon, who made The Wire - without doubt the greatest TV series ever made, in my opinion (although i'm guessing it's probably not the sort of thing which ANyhuis would like!) - was asked why he had not felt the need to kertow to the 'average viewer', with easier storylines and a greater sense of redemption and all the things which we might expect in more formulaic TV fare. his answer: "f**k the avergae viewer". His point: be true to yourself, do what you know is right, and don't worry about focus groups and popular opinion, and the results will probably be better. Of course families and young children should be accommodated. it's very nice that Edinburgh has a 'family loo' at its entrance. The playground opposite the gorillas at Rotterdam is brilliant. No-one would begrudge the monorail at Chester. But none of these detracts from the animal collections at all. When things do - when the 'fun' of the playground is more important than the brilliance of the Nile monitor, then that is bad, bad news.
Welcome back Sooty, even though I know that you have been logging on and lurking for quite some time. You were definitely missed, and I think that on this issue you and I are in complete agreement. I was making a specific point with the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, which has garnered the reputation of being a fairly serious establishment, and the ZooChat gallery is packed with hundreds of photos showing naturalistic exhibits for the animals. However, the zoo has made an effort to appeal to children in recent years by opening 3 "kiddie attractions" within the space of 18 months. "Zoomazium", "Willawong Station" and the "Historic Carousel" (opened between 2005-2006) are all tastefully done, far away from all of the award-winning animal enclosures, and thus I'm confident that you would whole-heartedly approve of the additions. Children can be educated and entertained at this zoo in Seattle, and there is no encroachment on the high quality that the zoo is famous for.
OK, I suppose you're all wondering how I'll react to some of these posts which seem to see directed at me. First, let me say that the name of our book is: "America's Best Zoos: A Travel Guide for FANS & FAMILIES". This means that we aimed our book to please both: "Fans" (as in ZooChatters) and "Families" (as in parents with children). Personally, I think this topic can please both. As SnowLeopard has repeatedly brought up, his beloved Woodland Park Zoo is a great zoo, it's "serious", and it appeals to the "Fans". On the other hand, Disney's Animal Kingdom is also a great zoo. While it certainly takes conservation seriously, it appeals much more so to the latter category, the "Families". Why can't we applaud both? My big point is I wonder why some of us have to be so judgmental if a zoo isn't as "serious" as we desire? I'll give some examples below: I've never ever even heard of "The Wire" and I can't say I've missed anything -- at least not based on this guy's arrogant, vulgar, and elitist attitude. A simple question, regarding that judgmentalism, why is doing what Simon does, "doing what is right"? Is using the language he uses "doing what is right"? No offense, Sooty, but don't you see how the above all are very judgmental and purposely non-flattering of children? Whether or not someone else's children are "paying little attention" to the animals really isn't our busines, is it? That's their parents' business, right? Same with whether or not they are "learning very little" -- whose business is that? And who decides what is "pandering to the lowest denominator"? Who are the "lowest denominator"? Children? Same with labelling an exhibit "tacky". Isn't that a matter of opinion? Please, however, don't take offense! I'm NOT labelling you as some anti-child person, especially since I know you have young children of your own. I'm just pointing out how the above statements of yours can be taken. No, not wrong. It's just your opinion, which means you're not "right" either. We're all entitled to our opinions. Of course I too want the zoos I love to be "done professionally" and "with integrity", but of course we all have our own opinions of what those terms mean, right? Question: WHY can't we have both? Why can't we be interested in both mongoose AND rollercoasters? What is it about rollercoasters that makes those of us who like them inferior? Again, WHO is the judge of what "detracts" from the animals collections? Who also judges what is "more important"? Many on this board who hate Disney's Animal Kingdom constantly whine about how its thrill rides, Disneyfied shows, and roaming Disney characters "detract" from, and are "more important than" the animals -- but I've never, ever, ever seen it this way. The rides, shows, and even the roaming characters all complement DAK's great animal collection! Just my thoughts! Isn't it great that we can have differing opinions? My biggest point in favor of zoos having a little bit of "fun" and not worrying so much about being "serious" is that such zoos (like DAK, Busch Gardens, and Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo) will attract visitors (particulary children) that the more "serious" zoos will not attract. So is there something wrong with these children who are more demanding of "fun"? If we think so, then aren't we falling into that judgmentalism again? Honestly, my own children would see plenty of fun in the serious zoos -- but I know of plenty of children who have no interest in a regular "serious" zoo. So what should our reaction be to these children? Should we use Mr. Simon's F-word on them? Are we really that arrogant and elitist -- or can we possibly be understanding enough to realize that different children have differing interests? I've seen children enjoying the animals on DAK's Kilimanjaro Safari ride -- children who normally wouldn't go to a zoo. Isn't this a good thing?
It should go to the thread "differences between American and European zoos"! Sooty mangabey, you are spot on. It is special modern British style, that family entertainment must be extremely tacky, extremely primitive, with worst and loudest music, eye-tiring colors etc. Something as dumb as possible. It is leaking to the Continent in form of Sealife Centres. I like those zoos which can be attractive to children without being dumb and noisy. BTW - many Dutch zoos recently built large covered playgrounds combined with bars: Rheine, Emmen, Gaiapark. Apparently this is what visitors want. Rheine has some small animals, Gaiapark has biologicaly inaccurate dinosaur statues (velociraptors with scales instead of feathers), Emmen gave up and has no animals at all.
I agree with sooty and Jurek7-which shouldn't wonder anyone. The reason why to keep wild animals shouldn't be as part of the shallow entertainment of small children. If you want to keep wild animals in a public display, do it with dignity & seriously-and honestly respect the needs of the animals. And if animals are disturbed and stressed by children "yell[ing] and scream[ing] to their heart's content" (and trust me, many of them are), then the question WHY the "excitement of the children" needs to be "muffled" is easily answered: for the sake of the animals kept within the zoo.
I've just posted some pictures of the play area at Brevard Zoo in Florida. I think it was well done and with the animal themes and actual animals integrated into it, some learning can take place, too. I'm not bothered by the combinations, other than the extra cost. I'd like to be able to go to Busch Gardens and not have to pay for the roller coasters I'm not going to ride. I love both DAK and ASDM and I think comparing them is kind of pointless. Their goals are similar with respect to conservation, but beyond that, they're going about it in completely different ways. (And speaking of ASDM, we in Arizona are not all retired, careful, or I'll make some generalizations about your neck of the woods). It does feel like in general the Europeans do more of the integrating of zoos with other activities. The zoo in Kristiansand Norway has more than a day's worth of things to do from the pirate ship to a big swimming area and a little town. But, it's still a wonderful zoo and doesn't skimp on the animals or their habitats. The zoo in Reykjavik Iceland has a zoo on one side and an amusement park on the other. I think economically, in such a small country with an extreme climate, it makes sense to combine things.
Sorry, but I think we're getting back into that judgmentalism. WHY is the entertainment of children "shallow"? And WHO is the judge of what is "with dignity" and what "honestly respect the needs of the animals"? Again I would stress that we CAN have both! For example, at the San Diego Zoo, children can yell and scream to their hearts' desire while riding the terrific Sky Ride or watching the Sea World quality sea lion show, but when they go to see the giant pandas or koalas, there are keepers there to remind visitors to talk in a hushed voice. At Disney's Animal Kingdom, there's lots and lots of good healthy childhood screaming going on in the "Finding Nemo" Broadway show, while on the Expedition Everest roller coaster, or when Mickey Mouse arrives -- but these delightful screams are, for the most part, out of range of the world-class animal exhibits at DAK.
Zoos will have to start being really careful not to lose their identity.Just look what is happening in the rest of the economy - airports now earn more from shops and restaurants than from flight operations.Auto manufacturers earn more from finance and leasing than from manufacturing cars.Supermarkets earn more on the interest on turnover retained 60-90 days before paying providers than they earn on margins.We are now seeing how these scenarios are playing out in the real economy.The day that zoos begin to seee animals as a sideshow and regard themseves as theme parks , all will be lost.As a child I thought I was in paradise when I was brought to old-style zoos , and I can tell you they had little or nothing in the way of playground facilities.I knew that a visit to the zoo was about animals , and that was more tthan enough.I can tell you that even as a small child I would have been irritated to waste time on playground attractions when I could have been watching the monkeys , cats & co.Do not underestimate the capacity of children to enjoy an undiluted zoo experience.If zoos become theme parks , we may just as well go the full way and make them a virtual experience , visited through joysticks & wearing goggles.
An constant air of old chip fat, candy floss and all other kind of cheap fast food, noisy room and energy consuming attractions, the never-ending booming of so-called "atmospheric music", the very same cheap dull souvenirs sold in every zoo, animals in an artificial fantasy setting that does not take the needs of the exhibited animals, but only those of the impatient visitors ("in a fishbowl") into account, ubiquitous gaudy commercialism (now that is an expression to quote...), lack of any continous eco-friendly execution of subjects...just watch "Fiece Creatures", and you know what is meant. Judging from the reactions of many people here, there seems to be a common comprehension of what is to understand as "dignity" and "respect of the needs of animals" in regard to modern zoo animal husbandry. If you really fail to grasp that, you still have a lot to learn. The entertainment of children does not have to be shallow; in the mentioned way, however, it most certainly is. And no, I don't think that "we" can have both. Your idea of "functioning" examples differs considerably from what I (and judging from the PMs I received, several other members) consider as functioning. As long as you don't want to understand this, and constantly try to play out the "child-fondness" card as your one and only ace in the hole, I don't think we'll find common ground.
Sorry (honestly), but I have very little idea what you're talking about here! 1. What is "old chip fat"? (from potato chips?) Are you suggesting that zoos should not sell potato chips or french fries? Wow, that's NOT a "Zoos as Playgrounds" issue, that's a political correctness issue. 2. As for "noisy room and energy consuming attractions", if they're not bothering the animals, and if they pay for themselves (which they usually do multiple times over), isn't that all that matters? Who cares how much energy they consume -- if that energy is paid for by the additional guests they draw! 3. I've never, ever heard "booming" atmospheric music in any of these zoos! Give some specific examples. 4. As for "cheap dull souvenirs sold in every zoo", you're right! The souvenirs sold in places like Disney's Animal Kingdom are MUCH better! 5. "animals in an artificial fantasy setting that does not take the needs of the exhibited animals" -- again, state some specific examples! I have no idea what you're talking about. 6. "but only those of the impatient visitors ("in a fishbowl") into account" >> What does "in a fishbowl" refer to? I'm lost! 7. "ubiquitous gaudy commercialism" -- such as??? Once again, stop throwing out such charges without specific examples. And again, WHO is the almightly judge of what is "gaudy"? 8. "lack of any continous eco-friendly execution of subjects...just watch "Fiece Creatures", and you know what is meant". >> I'm lost! What is "Fiece Creatures"? I'm guessing (really) you meant "Fierce Creatures", but that doesn't make it any clearer. It would AGAIN be most helpful if you'd give specific examples. Back to the insults, are we!! We actually COULD find more common ground if you didn't always respond with anger, insults, and venom -- and instead actually addressed the points I bring up. Hey, I do WANT to understand this -- but you make it impossible by just throwing out insults and judgments -- with no backing. We CAN have both (dignity/education and "fun") and I gave some very specific examples of why -- San Diego & Disney's Animal Kingdom. You say I'm wrong, but as usual, you give no reasons why I'm wrong! Try (just try) supporting your point! Tell me WHY the examples I gave from SD and DAK are not good examples.
I'm re-posting this paragraph for Sun's convenience -- so he can actually TRY to address some specific points -- rather than just insulting one he disagrees with.
Fierce Creatures is a 1997 follow-up film to A Fish Called Wanda starring John Cleese and Jamie Lee Curtis that was partly filmed at Marwell and Jersey Zoos. It's about a global coporation that takes over the fictional 'Marwood Zoo' and replace it's 'cute', animal-respective character with advertisments for major brands in every free space and a policy of only displaying 'fierce' creatures only to suit the public's demands. The whole film is on YouTube in different segments.
