Bristol Zoo (Closed) Bristol Zoo - 2022 planned closure of current site, and relocation to Wild Place site.

[Pertinax]

Absolutely. And I think my own emotional response is lessened a bit by the fact that, like @gentle lemur , I've been expecting a Clifton-to-Cribbs-Causeway switch for a very long time (back to the days of the proposed NWCP). So it was always when, not if, I think.

Me too. The reality comes as a bit of a shock as I think I can beat even GL's visiting record, -my earliest ones were circa 1956!- so its been a long time... But I always felt the Cribbs Causeway site( I'm not a great fan of the 'WildPlace' moniker) would only really prosper if it was their single site. Hopefully, though the zoo's loss is sad, now WP will be able to reach its full potential.

 

[Jarne]

Again, is that just an assumption or is it based on solid evidence from a study ?

Because I hear statements like that an awful lot on zoochat and in general when it comes to ex-situ zoo collections and honestly I don't really believe it at all.

I don't believe the public actually know what they want from a zoo and in most cases most visitors have no expectations other than recreation or simply very superficial and vague ones which are not really contingent on whether there are lions or elephants or giraffe.

Even if it is based on solid evidence (and I should really do some reading up on papers of this subject to argue my case better) I think it would be largely a byproduct of a narrative and expectation that has been engineered by zoos and still is in many cases (to their detriment).

This may be controversial but I don't think phasing out large megafauna from zoos would stop visitors coming through the doors and I don't think Bristol zoo's declining visitor numbers had anything to do with the lack of elephants or giraffes or whatever.

Unless you are talking about low-cost zoos like wildlife parks (and even they often have favorites like wolves, otters, bison, ...) you do need some sort of popular animals. Does that mean you always need elephants, giraffes, rhinos and lions? No, in smaller collections people will still come if those aren't present. In larger zoos that's a different case as people have expectations, you don't need every species but at least some of the most popular megafuana are needed. You clearly see in zoo reviews that many people do want to see them, and that they actively seek out zoos with these animals to visit from time to time. Some people will also visit zoos that have less/no megafauna, but this is rather an A and B situation instead of an A or B. Megafauna is and always will remain popular for the general public, so not to use this would be a waste.

Back to other collections, the most traditional megafauna isn't required but even they do need some popular animals. A good example I know is Nordhorn, a small park that has leopards, bison, wolves, harbor seals and zebras as more popular animals alongside a nice collection of lesser known species. A unique group are non-mammalian specialist parks. La ferme aux crocodiles seems to work, but they probably have additional sources of income besides the entry-fees. Bird parks like Avifauna and Walsrode do seem to struggle, and Avifauna is now housing some more popular animals like red panda, lemurs and South-American monkeys. So it's not impossible to not house any popular mammal, but it's very difficult to accomplish and probably only possible for a handful of zoos.

On the other hand, only ABC animals are also not the most popular. People want to be amazed and surprised. ABC animals can draw in visitors, but XYZ species are just as important in making those people's zoo visit feel extra special. One cannot live without the other.

 

[Jarne]

A second note: it's also in a large part due to their uniqueness that those zoos without popular mammals can exist. It's something special compared to more standard zoos. If every zoo would change to this type, the specialness would be lost. Zie-Zoo is a zoo without much charismatic species, but it's located relatively close to several zoos who do have a more mainstream collection like SafariparkBB, Dierenrijk and Overloon. It's something different, and that's certainly one of the things that draws in people that otherwise wouldn't visit them.

 

[Pertinax]

This may be controversial but I don't think phasing out large megafauna from zoos would stop visitors coming through the doors and I don't think Bristol zoo's declining visitor numbers had anything to do with the lack of elephants or giraffes or whatever.

I believe Bristol Zoo has been losing out to both Noah's Ark and its own Wild Place- particularly the former which has the 'big animals' plus large play areas as well. I think the reality is Bristol and its environs can't realistically support three major animal collections, and the more specialist Bristol Zoo (of recent years) has been losing out.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I believe Bristol Zoo has been losing out to both Noah's Ark and its own Wild Place- particularly the former which has the 'big animals' plus large play areas as well. I think the reality is Bristol and its environs can't realistically support three major animal collections, and the more specialist Bristol Zoo (of recent years) has been losing out.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Bristol zoo had been losing out to its own wild place, that would be the ultimate irony indeed.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

A second note: it's also in a large part due to their uniqueness that those zoos without popular mammals can exist. It's something special compared to more standard zoos. If every zoo would change to this type, the specialness would be lost. Zie-Zoo is a zoo without much charismatic species, but it's located relatively close to several zoos who do have a more mainstream collection like SafariparkBB, Dierenrijk and Overloon. It's something different, and that's certainly one of the things that draws in people that otherwise wouldn't visit them.

Totally agree @Jarne , good point.

 

[Andrew Swales]

I don't think it is ever giraffes and megafauna that get visitors through a zoos doors...

I am sorry, but this is quite simply not true.

edit (after the first 3 'likes') - my apologies for not expanding just a little...
The 'megafauna' are very much responsible for getting people through the zoos doors. Once they are in, the quality and length of the experience (to give value-for-money versus entry-fees), begins to cut in.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Unless you are talking about low-cost zoos like wildlife parks (and even they often have favorites like wolves, otters, bison, ...) you do need some sort of popular animals. Does that mean you always need elephants, giraffes, rhinos and lions? No, in smaller collections people will still come if those aren't present. In larger zoos that's a different case as people have expectations, you don't need every species but at least some of the most popular megafuana are needed. You clearly see in zoo reviews that many people do want to see them, and that they actively seek out zoos with these animals to visit from time to time. Some people will also visit zoos that have less/no megafauna, but this is rather an A and B situation instead of an A or B. Megafauna is and always will remain popular for the general public, so not to use this would be a waste.

Back to other collections, the most traditional megafauna isn't required but even they do need some popular animals. A good example I know is Nordhorn, a small park that has leopards, bison, wolves, harbor seals and zebras as more popular animals alongside a nice collection of lesser known species. A unique group are non-mammalian specialist parks. La ferme aux crocodiles seems to work, but they probably have additional sources of income besides the entry-fees. Bird parks like Avifauna and Walsrode do seem to struggle, and Avifauna is now housing some more popular animals like red panda, lemurs and South-American monkeys. So it's not impossible to not house any popular mammal, but it's very difficult to accomplish and probably only possible for a handful of zoos.

On the other hand, only ABC animals are also not the most popular. People want to be amazed and surprised. ABC animals can draw in visitors, but XYZ species are just as important in making those people's zoo visit feel extra special. One cannot live without the other.

No, I wasn't referring to those kind of wildlife parks actually, I don't really consider those kind of backyard ventures to be on the level of zoos like Bristol or Jersey at all.

I agree to some extent with you but I think that there are viable and preferrable alternatives to the big Sub-Saharan African megafauna like elephants, giraffe, African lions etc.

Bristol for example had their gorillas and Asiatic lions and Jersey have their spectacled bears, orangutang and gorillas and these work fine in my opinion whilst also being important in terms of ex-situ captive breeding.

In terms of ABC's the thing is a great many of these animals would have at one point been obscure and non charismatic.

For example, if you look at staple ABC animals like meerkats, Asian short clawed otters and ring tailed lemurs even these would have been unknown or seen as undesireable at one point if you go back far enough in the history of zoos.

You have to ask yourself how many mammal species that are currently obscure and endangered and in need of ex-situ could one day attain the status of an ABC in zoos given the right kind of marketing drive by zoos ?

 

[TNT]

For example, if you look at staple ABC animals like meerkats, Asian short clawed otters and ring tailed lemurs even these would have been unknown or seen as undesireable at one point if you go back far enough in the history of zoos.

But if you "go back far enough", just about anything was interesting and new to people.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I am sorry, but this is quite simply not true.

I know you have a great deal of experience so please explain why you believe this ?

Furthermore, don't you think that this visitor expectation is something engineered to a certain extent by zoos and culture itself rather than being something innate ?

 

[Jarne]

Bristol for example had their gorillas and Asiatic lions and Jersey have their spectacled bears, orangutang and gorillas and these work fine in my opinion whilst also being important in terms of ex-situ captive breeding.

Of-course you don't need elephants and giraffes. The species you list there are all other examples of popular megafauna. When it comes to lions, most people don't care wether it's an Asian or an African. A lion is a lion for the general public. Gorillas are very popular but orang-utans, chimps or bonobos work fine as well. Bears are in general quite popular, wether they are spectacleds, malayan sun or European brown matters much less.

Of-course a large mixed savanna with giraffes (in Europe preferably kordofan at the moment) is always nice, and a great way to conserve antelopes. A large herd of elephants is also a nice sight, especially when combined with some ungulates.

 

[Jarne]

Furthermore, don't you think that this visitor expectation is something engineered to a certain extent by zoos and culture itself rather than being something innate ?

People do love big mammals in general more, yes, that's innate and leads to those animals featured not only more often in zoos but also in other media like documentaries, studies, books, ... Adding a species to the loved list is easier, but removing all these basic popular species is something else.

 

[Pertinax]

Wouldn't it be ironic if Bristol zoo had been losing out to its own wild place, that would be the ultimate irony indeed.

I suspect it is more a case of losing out to Noah's Ark though...Wild Place still feels rather 'empty' to me when I have visited. I think the main problem- as you fear- in all this future big move will be the loss of particularly the major reptile/fish/insect/nocturnal collections the zoo houses. Wild Place hasn't got any sort of building infrastructure so fresh housing will have to be done from scratch. Enormously expensive. So I can see the emphasis changing rather to more larger species again- but we will see obviously. I hope they will be able to retain some balance perhaps.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

People do love big mammals in general more, yes, that's innate and leads to those animals featured not only more often in zoos but also in other media like documentaries, studies, books, ... Adding a species to the loved list is easier, but removing all these basic popular species is something else.

I've never said they be removed but I do firmly believe we need to revise our focus and emphasis on them because this comes at a very detrimental cost in terms of research and conservation.

In both ex-situ and in-situ terms we will not be able to meet the challenges of the biodiversity crisis with that current paradigm.

 

[Andrew Swales]

I am sorry, but this is quite simply not true.

I know you have a great deal of experience so please explain why you believe this ?

Furthermore, don't you think that this visitor expectation is something engineered to a certain extent by zoos and culture itself rather than being something innate ?

I dont 'believe this' - it is a fact. Simply look at the rise in footfall at Yorkshire, following the arrival of the Lions and Polar Bears, at WildPlace after the Bears, at Highland after the bear cub, (at London decades ago following their 2 historic Polar Bear cubs, at Hamerton following the arrival of the White Tigers, and indeed the Noah'sArk - Bristol comparison made above... The list would get very boring if it were complete.
It is not a belief, it is a fact.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I dont 'believe this' - it is a fact. Simply look at the rise in footfall at Yorkshire, following the arrival of the Lions and Polar Bears, at WildPlace after the Bears, at Highland after the bear cub, (at London following their 2 historic Polar Bear cubs, at Hamerton following the arrival of the White Tigers, and indeed the Noah'sArk - Bristol comparison made above... The list would get very boring if it were complete. It is not a belief it is a fact.

So as a zoo owner and someone who has kept neglected species such as the collared lemur from disappearing ex-situ what do you propose that zoos do ?

Is it a case of having a few "charismatics" in a zoo in order to keep footfall going and visitors coming through the doors ?

How might these "charismatics" be defined and can other species be engingeered to join the ranks of the "charismatics"?

Is it the responsibility of a zoo to raise the profile of these species to the public through showcasing them ?

 

[Jarne]

I've never said they be removed but I do firmly believe we need to revise our focus and emphasis on them because this comes at a very detrimental cost in terms of research and conservation.

In both ex-situ and in-situ terms we will not be able to meet the challenges of the biodiversity crisis with that current paradigm.

Part of the role of these large species is actually to bring in money to conserve those lesser known species, not only ex-situ but also in-situ. Many megafauna are for example used as umbrella species for the whole ecosystem. As long as those megafauna are on the "loved list" they will keep fulfilling such a role.

Some zoos clearly fail to use these popular species to protect less popular species, but many do without doubt. I can only hope that Bristol will follow that path and not only go with megafauna in Wild Place.

 

[14556]

In the news release, they say: “Over the next five years, even if we were to sell all our property in Clifton, except Bristol Zoo Gardens, and raise £7 million through philanthropic fundraising, we would still have a capital funding shortfall of £8 million."

Does anyone know what the other Clifton properties are they are referring to?

 

[Andrew Swales]

For example, if you look at staple ABC animals like meerkats, Asian short clawed otters and ring tailed lemurs even these would have been unknown or seen as undesireable at one point if you go back far enough in the history of zoos.

This point (or part of it at least)is actually very true. Going back to my childhood, Ring-tailed Lemurs (Lemurs in general) and Meerkats were practically un-known in zoos. They were certainly not undesirable, just unavailable or not known/promoted. But, their place would have been taken by the box office spp of their day, the bears, dingoes, macaques, imported South American monkeys, sea-lions etc.
The megafauna is the constant.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Part of the role of these large species is actually to bring in money to conserve those lesser known species, not only ex-situ but also in-situ. Many megafauna are for example used as umbrella species for the whole ecosystem. As long as those megafauna are on the "loved list" they will keep fulfilling such a role.

Some zoos clearly fail to use these popular species to protect less popular species, but many do without doubt. I can only hope that Bristol will follow that path and not only go with megafauna in Wild Place.

I know this Jarne, I'm a conservation biologist and I don't and wouldn't deny the utility of the umbrella species concept in most cases.

However, as a dominant paradigm in conservation (and particularly when it comes to in-situ conservation) it undeniably has a lot of flaws to it and I believe we must examine them.

Just look at the giant panda for example and the findings of recent research that using it as an umbrella species in China hasn't in fact improved the conservation of other equally if not more threatened species such as the dhole but has actually been detrimental.

I agree and I hope that Bristol are able to navigate that path well too.