Big Zoos or Small Zoos?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TNT
  • Start date Start date
TNT

TNT

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
Recently, during a short stay in Southampton, I visited Marwell Zoo, Amazon World Zoo Park and New Forest Wildlife Park.

I personally enjoyed visiting AWZP and NFWF much more than Marwell. I find smaller zoos much more personal, interactive and from my experience, the keepers much more approachable. (Please note that I'm not dissing keepers from larger zoos, this is just what I've experienced)

So do you guys prefer larger or smaller zoos/collections? (And what are your reasons). I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks, TNT.
 
For me,as long as the zoo takes quality care of it's animals and provides them with everything they need then no matter the size of the zoo I will enjoy the visit. I will also state that larger zoos will have a few more exotic species but that is to be expected although you can find hidden gems such as Lakeland Wildlife Oasis where if you took your time to view everything , you could go round the zoo in 1-2 hours. The snow leopards are a particular highlight of the zoo and have a very good enclosure with two on show and off show dens.
 
Komodo99 said:
he snow leopards are a particular highlight of the zoo (Lakeland Wildlife Oasis) and have a very good enclosure with two on show and off show dens.
Click to expand...

Unless it's changed significantly in the last five years I'd struggle to call it any better than adequate (and that's on a generous day) -it's tiny.
 
Shorts said:
Unless it's changed significantly in the last five years I'd struggle to call it any better than adequate (and that's on a generous day) -it's tiny.
Click to expand...
I only visited last year and I think it is half way decent for the animals that they do have in there but I do think it could do with a few improvements.Although the tunnel within the enclosure is an odd addition to the exhibit
 
I enjoy both, but I think it depends on who I'm with. Big zoos are more fun to visit on my own, small zoos are better with family or friends.

With big zoos there's obviously more ground to cover, and it will take most of the day to get around so people will get tired and start to complain about stopping for food or not going to see this or that animal. There's kind of an obligation to do everything in the zoo with a group, whereas when you're on your own you get to pick and choose what you do and at what pace. Also I'm not a fan of crowds on busier days.

Smaller zoos are more of a half-day affair, so trips there are definitely more relaxed. Depending on the size of the zoo you can usually walk the full circuit within half an hour, then you can revisit areas you liked and maybe catch the animals do something different. With the smaller number of species in smaller zoos, they generally help you appreciate animals you wouldn't think twice about in a larger zoo, and while you go to a large zoo expecting lots of rarities, finding one or two in small zoos somehow feels a lot better. Small zoos definitely have a simple charm that large zoos can't capture.

Some examples I can think of are Five Sisters and Edinburgh Zoo in Scotland, and both Franklin Park and Stoneham Zoo of Zoo New England (I enjoyed my visit to Stoneham immensely more)
 
I like to be able to stand/sit and watch animals for 10-15minutes, so smaller zoos work better in that respect as you have more free time than at a larger zoo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNT
Apologies if some of you dislike the wording of my question... I was just interested in people's thoughts.
Thanks.
 
Oh, I don't dislike the wording of the question :) I just think there is no meaningful way to compare a small collection and a large collection on an equal basis.
 
For me, the size doesn't matter. Just the species seen inside. Cabarceno is a big zoo (due to the big naturalistic enclosures for animals) and it's boring to me (although I was here when very child, so maybe things changed). San Diego is enormous and it's the most exciting zoo that I have been in. By the side of small zoos, I have been in boring small zoos such as Oasis del Valle park in Teneriffe island, and exciting small zoos such as Prague terrarium.
But, in the hypothetic case of the same number of interesting species for me, I would prefair clearly a small zoo. In a big zoo is very easy to miss some zone with some dreamed animal (I remember in San Diego to miss the crowned eagle, polar zone already closed, not time for Koalafornia nor Urban Jungle...). In a small zoo, you can return easily to an enclosure if a dreamed animal was hidden to see if some hours later it appeared (that happened to me with the California butterfly ray at Birch Aquarium). And as mentioned before, small zoos tend to be (not a rule!) less crowded than big zoos... and crowds are something that I'm not happy with. Also, in smaller zoos one gets less tired of walking or standing up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNT
TeaLovingDave said:
Oh, I don't dislike the wording of the question :) I just think there is no meaningful way to compare a small collection and a large collection on an equal basis.
Click to expand...
Ah okay, I see where you are coming from.

If people don't wish to compare them, I'm happy to hear their views and personal experiences in "big and small" zoos. :)
 
ThomasNotTom said:
Recently, during a short stay in Southampton, I visited Marwell Zoo, Amazon World Zoo Park and New Forest Wildlife Park.

I personally enjoyed visiting AWZP and NFWF much more than Marwell. I find smaller zoos much more personal, interactive and from my experience, the keepers much more approachable. (Please note that I'm not dissing keepers from larger zoos, this is just what I've experienced)

So do you guys prefer larger or smaller zoos/collections? (And what are your reasons). I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks, TNT.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure Marwell even classes as a large 'collection' any more?! More a case of a large zoo with hardly any animals and plenty of empty spaces!
I'm not surprised you preferred smaller zoos over Marwell!
 
pipaluk said:
More a case of a large zoo with hardly any animals and plenty of empty spaces!
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say hardly any animals, but I know what you mean in terms of the empty spaces. I did appreciate their large variety of unglates!
 
pipaluk said:
I'm not sure Marwell even classes as a large 'collection' any more?! More a case of a large zoo with hardly any animals and plenty of empty spaces!
I'm not surprised you preferred smaller zoos over Marwell!
Click to expand...

Zoochatters often mention that Marwell hardly has any animals, but according to Zootierliste, it does have 120 species. To me, that's a fair-sized collection (though of course not huge). Is Zootierliste incorrect, or does the collection just seem small because it used to be much bigger?
 
Hvedekorn said:
Zoochatters often mention that Marwell hardly has any animals, but according to Zootierliste, it does have 120 species. To me, that's a fair-sized collection (though of course not huge). Is Zootierliste incorrect, or does the collection just seem small because it used to be much bigger?
Click to expand...
It is a large zoo in terms of area but with a rapidly decreasing mammal collection over the last 10 years. There are a lot of empty areas that once were enclosures. Probably birds have decreased too. The reptile and Invertebrates have increased over that period though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TNT
pipaluk said:
rapidly decreasing mammal collection over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
That's a shame! I've only been once so can't make comparisons. What notable species have they lost? Thanks.
 
I posted a list of over 20 species around 2 years ago, I will try to find it and post an updated list. Some of the losses are more notable than others, but a loss is a loss and very few new species have been brought in. In the last year, I can think of King Colobus, Mishmi Takin and Ocelot for starters. Prior to that, from memory: Pudu, Babirusa, grey Kangaroo, Parma Wallaby, Gemsbok, Dama Gazelle, Arabian Gazelle, Greater Kudu, Sand Cat, Cusimanse, Diana monkey, mouse lemur, Madagascar giant rat, dwarf mongoose, several marmosets/tamarins, Chapman's zebra, Ankole cattle, Vicuna, mara, then white -tailed gnu arrived & left again. There are several more I've forgotten. Only arrivals I can think of are lesser Kudu, Crowned Lemur and Brazilian Tapir. This is just the mammals, birds haven't done much better!

Edit: Forgot Rock Hyrax, not sure whether the grey-legged Douroucouli are still there or what's happened to the porcupines that shared the king Colobus enclosure.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TNT
pipaluk said:
I posted a list of over 20 species around 2 years ago, I will try to find it and post an updated list. Some of the losses are more notable than others, but a loss is a loss and very few new species have been brought in. In the last year, I can think of King Colobus, Mishmi Takin and Ocelot for starters. Prior to that, from memory: Pudu, Babirusa, grey Kangaroo, Parma Wallaby, Gemsbok, Dama Gazelle, Arabian Gazelle, Greater Kudu, Sand Cat, Cusimanse, Diana monkey, mouse lemur, Madagascar giant rat, dwarf mongoose, several marmosets/tamarins, Chapman's zebra, Ankole cattle, Vicuna, mara, then white -tailed gnu arrived & left again. There are several more I've forgotten. Only arrivals I can think of are lesser Kudu, Crowned Lemur and Brazilian Tapir. This is just the mammals, birds haven't done much better!
Click to expand...
Wow! That is alot... such a shame. Do you know why this has happened? (Sorry for the birrage of questions)
 
ThomasNotTom said:
Wow! That is alot... such a shame. Do you know why this has happened? (Sorry for the birrage of questions)
Click to expand...
There are people on here with greater knowledge than me as to why this has happened.
A few species were allowed to die out and they weren't replaced either with the same or even a new species. There are probably at least 10 areas which once held animals and are now empty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNT
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top