Can a zoo be too small?

[MurphyFox]

Today, I visited the Capron Park Zoo in MA. I realized that one could pretty much see the whole thing in 30-45 minutes even if they stop to look at the animals. While I am okay with the size, I can imagine some people will probably think it is too small for them.

This is when I ask.

Can a zoo be too small?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I think it is a matter of preference, some people will always prefer larger zoos in the style of San Diego, LA, Chester, Whipsnade, Beauval etc. while others will prefer much smaller zoos like Jersey, Bristol, Shaldon etc.

Personally I do prefer smaller zoos / collections because there is typically a much more intimate feel to these places and I prefer substance over style. I've found that it is typically the smaller zoos which make outsized contributions to conservation.

Either way, I think my own criteria for a good zoo is more related to what it does in terms of education of the public and ex-situ conservation or contributions to in-situ conservation rather than the size.

 

[Brum]

I personally prefer a small zoo with interesting smaller species, so in my opinion no, a zoo can't be too small. Personal highlights for the UK's smaller collections would include Bristol, Birmingham, Exmoor, Shaldon, Newquay, WILD, Paradise Park (Hayle), and the now defunct Living Coasts and the RSCC. These are all prime examples of what can be achieved on a small site and with a vision.

 

[Dassie rat]

RSCC had an interesting collection in a 1 acre room.

 

[RatioTile]

Philosophically, how small can a zoo be before it's no longer considered a zoo?

 

[MurphyFox]

I personally prefer a small zoo with interesting smaller species, so in my opinion no, a zoo can't be too small. Personal highlights for the UK's smaller collections would include Bristol, Birmingham, Exmoor, Shaldon, Newquay, WILD, Paradise Park (Hayle), and the now defunct Living Coasts and the RSCC. These are all prime examples of what can be achieved on a small site and with a vision.

A small zoo should specialize in smaller species, which means more species as well.

 

[TinoPup]

A zoo should only be as big as they're able to support and afford.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

A small zoo should specialize in smaller species, which means more species as well.

Yes, I think this is definitely an advantage to smaller zoos and of course most of the smaller species are even more interesting than the larger ones so it is a win win IMO.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Philosophically, how small can a zoo be before it's no longer considered a zoo?

That is a bit of an esoteric question and there would be a legislative / legal definition of what constitutes a zoo.

However, I personally don't think that there are any limits to using the term as long as the collection numbers more than one animal and / or species and that it is open to the public for certain periods (if it was completely private then it would be better defined as being a private collection / menagerie IMO).

 

[Hvedekorn]

I think they can to some degree. In my opinion, small zoos should generally aim for keeping many small species instead of only a few large ones. For example, if a 3-hectare zoo wanted to keep elephants, giraffes and rhinos, then these three species would probably take up the entire area, while if it aimed to only keep smaller mammals, birds and ectotherms, then it could possibly squeeze in 80 species.

A zoo with that small of a surface area and only 3 species would indeed feel very small to me, while a small zoo with a good selection of small species in well-done exhibits could easily be worth a visit.

And then of course distance can factor in: Driving for hours to visit a zoo that can be seen in 30 minutes can probably feel a bit disheartening, but it wouldn't necessarily be too small for a zoo within a few minutes' drive (or walking distance).

 

[Dassie rat]

Philosophically, how small can a zoo be before it's no longer considered a zoo?

Many species of invertebrates could be kept vertically and horizontally along the walls of a small room. I would consider that to be a zoo.

 

[elefante]

I don't care if the zoo is small or large, as long as it doesn't have crappy enclosures.

 

[birdsandbats]

I've been to zoos where it only take 2-5 minutes to see everything.

 

[DavidBrown]

I've been to zoos where it only take 2-5 minutes to see everything.

What zoos were those? What was there to see in them?

 

[birdsandbats]

What zoos were those? What was there to see in them?

The smallest was the Stevens Point Herptelogical Society. They have a small collection of pet reptiles, not really worth going out of your way but the enclosure is nice (they are all kept in a single huge enclosure). Bruemmer Park Zoo only takes a few minutes to see as well, you can read my review here for my thoughts on that zoo.

Wisconsin Rapids Municipal Zoo takes slightly longer to see (maybe 5-10 minutes), and I reviewed that zoo here. Butterfly Gardens of Wisconsin could only take a few minutes if you rushed it but I think a more reasonable time to see everything would be 15-30 minutes depending on how much time you want to spend searching for the rarities. I reviewed that facility here.

 

[TNT]

I personally prefer a small zoo with interesting smaller species, so in my opinion no, a zoo can't be too small. Personal highlights for the UK's smaller collections would include Bristol, Birmingham, Exmoor, Shaldon, Newquay, WILD, Paradise Park (Hayle), and the now defunct Living Coasts and the RSCC. These are all prime examples of what can be achieved on a small site and with a vision.

You forget Axe Valley

 

[Brum]

You forget Axe Valley

Nope, I'm just not sure on the size of the place so didn't know whether to include it. My cut off for a small zoo was approximately 16 acres (my estimate only), and since I've not visited Axe Valley then I'm genuinely not sure how much space it takes up...

 

[MRJ]

Here is a zoo of only 1 acre in size that has a varied collection specialising in smaller primates, including some unusual species. It is certainly a collection I would like to visit:

Shaldon Zoo

I don't think the size of a zoo matters provided it is big enough for adequately sized enclosures for it's animals. It is important that it has enough "entertainment" value for visitors, and that it meets the objectives of it's operators. Small can also be an advantage for some markets, for instance reading consumer reviews of Capron Park Zoo many marked it up for it's small size, being easy to get around with small children. Most importantly, as @TinoPup points out, a zoo should not be any larger than can be properly supported by it's income.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Here is a zoo of only 1 acre in size that has a varied collection specialising in smaller primates, including some unusual species. It is certainly a collection I would like to visit:

Shaldon Zoo

Never been there either, but like you I'm very impressed by this small zoo and particular how much it contributes to in-situ efforts to conserving endangered Brazilian primates.

 

[BerdNerd]

I’m personally a fan of huge zoos like San Diego Zoo, since that usually means there will be more animals to see. It’s also great for the animals too, since the more space there is, usually the more exhibit space the animals are given. Although small zoos like Orange County Zoo or Chehaw Park are good too, especially if you have a strict schedule, but still want to do something fun. So you could say I’m a fan of all zoos. Well, except for those sad and pathetic little roadside ones.