But surely these will hold more new species, not better homes for existing stock?
Pairi Daiza Opinions about Pairi Daiza
- Thread starter OkapiJohn
- Start date
-
- Tags
- good zoo opinion pairi daiza
But surely these will hold more new species, not better homes for existing stock?
People don't forget that, but generally there are 3 big differences:
- those enclosures tend to be decades old, not years, so were acceptable at one point, Pairi Daiza's are often outdated at conception.
- Other zoos, Beauval excepted, don't have the same resources
- Most other zoos cannot build stuff from scratch but are limited by their history and in cases the monumental listings of buildings/infrastructure
So from Europe's richest zoo with on average the newest enclosures one would expect not only excellent theming, but also excellent animal husbandry, which is just not the case.
Lintworm already mentioned a bunch of good points for this statement. Just one more thing. Other zoos with such bad exhibits doesn't claim to be the best zoo in Europe like PD does.
Several species will get a new home. Like the raccoon dogs and the Japanese macaques in the new Japanese world. So old enclosures might be used to give some species more space as well
- the point I was making is that those enclosures in Pairi Daiza are much better than the onces decades old. Above all they comply with laws and regulations.
- Paira Daiza does have resources because of the way the represent themselves. Long-term this gives them the opportunity to improve a lot. Still the argument of the resources really doesnt make sense. Pairi Daiza exists for only 30 years. Look how far they got in such a incredible short period of time. Let's see how they develop the next 10 years. Everybody compares zoo's older than a century to a brand new zoo. I think its fair enough to give Pairi Daiza some time reach the highest standards. Other zoo's are apparently allowed to have terrible enclosures because they are decades old. So Pairi Daiza can have some average enclosures for a little while.
- so because of the lack of vision of other zoo's monumental buildings are an excuse? Guess Pairi Daiza does a pretty great job in this case. Don't think they will ever face this problem since they are always thinking a few steps ahead and made sure they have more than enough space.
That's called marketing. I think it works pretty well since their revenue is more than 100 million
I think you are completely missing the point of what has been said.
In a nut shell:
Poor enclosures in old zoos are because they are in old zoos - the poor enclosures at Pairi Daiza were built like that now. You're basically saying that it is perfectly fine for poor enclosures to be built in the present day by a wealthy zoo because eventually they might build better enclosures.
The difference is that Pairi Daiza is one of the wealthiest zoos in Europe - if not the wealthiest - and is bankrolled by one of the wealthiest men in Belgium; with these kinds of funds they have no excuse to settle for average or terrible in the short term. They could easily afford excellence - but across my three visits I have increasingly noticed that the cycle of expenditure largely runs as follows:
- Make the new build look as flashy and impressive as possible in order to attract visitors, preferably with as many options for secondary expenditure by visitors as possible, whilst cutting costs on actual exhibit size and standards.
- Once the novelty of the new build starts to wane, pour all funds into another new build to attract the punters rather than making improvements to the exhibits which already exist elsewhere in the collection.
- Make the new build look as flashy and impressive as possible in order to attract visitors, preferably with as many options for secondary expenditure by visitors as possible, whilst cutting costs on actual exhibit size and standards.
Furthermore, often new species arrive and are put into existing poor housing rather than either a) improving this housing or b) building new housing. The dorcopsis exhibit which you yourself highlight as one of the low points of the collection is one such example. I also know from recent conversations with other zoo enthusiasts who regularly visit the collection that I am not the only one to have noticed that even some of the better exhibits are starting to feel neglected and dishevelled as they age - for instance the Oasis, which at the time of my last visit in August 2023 seemed to be a lot cooler than usual, with a lot more empty exhibits and a vague sense of having been forgotten.
The sad thing is, I actually rather like Pairi Daiza - it just feels wrong to do when it increasingly feels that a visit means paying through the nose for a zoo which should be worth the entry price, and easily could be worth the entry price, but isn't.
But the tigers and dorcopsis you mentioned in your post from a few hours ago won’t be moving to the new enclosures nor are likely to have their current living situation improved.
I might end up sounding redundant for saying what was previously said but you really seem to have missed the point. Other zoos are not “allowed to” have underwhelming enclosures, but are stuck with them. I am sure they are either expected to either empty the enclosure for good or replace their animals with a smaller species as soon as possible.
The tragedy is that good enclosures aren‘t necessarily that expensive. Building mock rock volcanoes and real temples is, though. But even though they cost millions, mock rock volcanoes and real temples aren‘t good places to house great apes, tigers or leopards. But Pairi Daiza doesn‘t care. So many of their flashy new enclosures are bad for the animals because they simply don‘t care. Not because there is no money, not because they don‘t want to spend money (they do, just see the expensive Asian temples!), not because there is no space. Much of what they build is bad because their owner has the idea to put living tigers in a temple and real gorillas in a volcanoe and no one cares or dares to tell him that this is a really bad idea from the animal‘s point of view.
Last edited:
It's not because it's a only a marketing tool that it shouldn't be a point of critique. If a zoo markets itself as "the best in Europe", one might expect that they set the highest standards for themself to live up to that title. If fair arguments can be made that this isn't the case for all aspects -I think you would agree on that-, it's just dishonest and misleading. And that the slogan works nevertheless for their revenue does not vindicate it: average visitors mostly don't see the flaws of the park's exhibitry practices because they don't have the knowledge to see through the superficial aesthetics of the park, but many zoo enthousiasts do.
Complying with laws and regulations is hardly a complimen: it's the bare minimum. In the same way, it's only normal that Pairi Daiza's fairly recent exhibits are of better quality than old ones in older zoos. If the park is keen on calling itself "the best zoo in Europe" however, the reference point for judging exhibit quality on Pairi Daiza are the best examples that exist in Europe. And when one does that, the park comes out as fairly average, at best.
You can't blame the problem that older zoos face with their buildings on "lack of vision", but merely on the simple fact that "nobody can predict the future". Many poor enclosures in older zoos were actually of high quality when they were built and are only viewed as poor because the standards of good exhibitry have changed -and are still changing- over the decades. The problem is that if they want to improve the exhibitry, they have to work within the framework of existing infrastructure. The reason that Pairi Daiza has not bumped into this problem is not because of a percieved "vision" on what to do in the future, but simply because of something you point out yourself: Pairi Daiza is a fairly young park and is still in a phase of its development in which they have the luxury of building everything from scratch. The park has much space, but it's not infinite. You can reasonably predict that when the park grows a few decades older and wants to redevelop the existing park to line up with future standards of exhibitry, they will also face the problem that they have to work with already-existing buildings.
I would take this even further and argue that Pairi Daiza might bump into this problem earlier than you might expect. If Pairi Daiza would really be thinking so many steps ahead, I would argue that it is a somewhat unpractical decision for them to build average enclosures for now and think of improving it in a later phase, if they are able to build something that is above-average from the first time so that it might be more future proof.
Others already have dissected your posts quite well, but I want to make some additional statements
The law regulating zoo enclosures in Wallonia is a shambles, it is severely outdated and that is why Flanders adopted a new one. Even Parc Animalier de Bouillon adheres to the Wallonian laws and that isn't a zoo to be proud of...
Younger zoos than Pairi Daiza like Gaiazoo, Zoo Parc Overloon and the Yorkshire Wildlife Park, to name just a few, can build far better enclosures on far smaller budgets than Pairi Daiza does. Age of a zoo is not an excuse. Especially as when I first visited in 2009, the standards of the animal enclosures (mostly birds) were a lot higher than they are now.
I actually doubt Pairi Daiza is a few steps ahead. The current building frenzy seems to be there because Eric Domb wants to see his life project completed before he retires. That makes for rushed decisions for which the animals suffer. But in e.g. the Chinese garden and Ganesha I was also surprised at the level of maintenance necessary already (loose masonry etc.; something I have heard some zoo professionals also remark upon) Some of the best zoos now are in that place because their investments 10-40 years ago were ahead of their time and built to last. Places like Burgers' Zoo, Zurich or even Gaiazoo don't need to majorly overhaul many of their relatively old enclosures because they still comply with today's standards. It will be very interesting to see what happens in a few years when Domb retires and the park is "complete". I certainly hope Pairi Daiza is no Icarus, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility.
I think the volcanoes themselves aren't that bad, though lacking in natural light. I just don't understand why they need 2 with their subpar outdoor enclosures. Especially the smaller enclosure is too small and narrow with too little structure. It is no surprise a mangabey was killed by a gorilla there...
The law regulating zoo enclosures in Wallonia is a shambles, it is severely outdated and that is why Flanders adopted a new one. Even Parc Animalier de Bouillon adheres to the Wallonian laws and that isn't a zoo to be proud of...
Younger zoos than Pairi Daiza like Gaiazoo, Zoo Parc Overloon and the Yorkshire Wildlife Park, to name just a few, can build far better enclosures on far smaller budgets than Pairi Daiza does. Age of a zoo is not an excuse. Especially as when I first visited in 2009, the standards of the animal enclosures (mostly birds) were a lot higher than they are now.
I actually doubt Pairi Daiza is a few steps ahead. The current building frenzy seems to be there because Eric Domb wants to see his life project completed before he retires. That makes for rushed decisions for which the animals suffer. But in e.g. the Chinese garden and Ganesha I was also surprised at the level of maintenance necessary already (loose masonry etc.; something I have heard some zoo professionals also remark upon) Some of the best zoos now are in that place because their investments 10-40 years ago were ahead of their time and built to last. Places like Burgers' Zoo, Zurich or even Gaiazoo don't need to majorly overhaul many of their relatively old enclosures because they still comply with today's standards. It will be very interesting to see what happens in a few years when Domb retires and the park is "complete". I certainly hope Pairi Daiza is no Icarus, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility.
I think the volcanoes themselves aren't that bad, though lacking in natural light. I just don't understand why they need 2 with their subpar outdoor enclosures. Especially the smaller enclosure is too small and narrow with too little structure. It is no surprise a mangabey was killed by a gorilla there...
It's really bad, first up the volcanoes were build to house a breeding group and male bachelor group. The needs for a bachelor group and breeding group are different. A bachelor group needs more separation options different rooms. A breeding group needs less rooms but more visual barriers inside the room. Both need multiple entrances and exits. Now if we add in a mangabey species you need separate room and entrances and exits for them. When I was last there because of the terrible design 2 males were showing stereotypical behavior out of 3. One was particularly bad sitting under a blanket and banging it's head against the wall. So looking at the volcanoes size, climbing opportunity, enrichment and visual barriers all are lacking. For me it's one of the worst gorilla enclosures I've seen.
In the bachelor 'group' I think maybe the two young males are now permanently (?) seperated from the silverback 'Shomari'. On my visit last spring I didn't see him at all, due to the design meaning seperation also meant he was offshow somewhere. So all three males are never on display at the same time anymore? The worst stereotyper would be Tebogo who was handraised, he is a very bad candidate to be successful in a male group really. He would have been badly stressed by being kept with the 'stranger' silverback.
I think the volcanoes do have the shortcomings as you describe. For males in particular, there is no opportunity for on-show segregation should it be necessary. Which means for the offshow gorilla(s) there is limited space or stimulation.
Last edited:
And precisely because of that there is no excuse for Pairi to just "comply with regulations" instead of build really good enclosures for the animals, instead of continue investing that huge amount of money on more hotels, shops, and decoration.
Also, there is no need to give them 10 more years to see how it develops. We have been seeing that on the last 15 years. Animal welfare is not the owner´s priority, so we won´t see those changes unless the park goes to others hands.
Some people make fair points. But if I have to believe some other people Pairi Daiza is a horrible place to visit. With animals suffering in super bad enclosures.
In general Pairi Daiza has fine standards for it's enclosures. A few could be better (and need to be in my opnion). But I seem to miss the point according to some of you because Pairi Daiza has money en other zoo's don't. So other zoo's are allowed to keep animals in terrible enclosures to get more visitor's instead of relocating animals (to other zoo's). And Pairi Daiza can't keep animals in average enclosures because they use their money for a bigger plan. Yeah sure.. you can always look at a situation in such a way that your arguments are valid.
The only reason Pairi Daiza is developing so quickly is because they to do the things as they do now. It's alright if not everyone can appreciate. I do and I am looking forward for everything that has to come the next few years.
In general Pairi Daiza has fine standards for it's enclosures. A few could be better (and need to be in my opnion). But I seem to miss the point according to some of you because Pairi Daiza has money en other zoo's don't. So other zoo's are allowed to keep animals in terrible enclosures to get more visitor's instead of relocating animals (to other zoo's). And Pairi Daiza can't keep animals in average enclosures because they use their money for a bigger plan. Yeah sure.. you can always look at a situation in such a way that your arguments are valid.
The only reason Pairi Daiza is developing so quickly is because they to do the things as they do now. It's alright if not everyone can appreciate. I do and I am looking forward for everything that has to come the next few years.
That sound like words coming from a very high horse.
Who builds enclosures for big felines (Lion, Puma, etc) that have no real second enclosure (well, the lions have a concrete pit) is really not building towards the future. So even if an enclosure is ok or mediocre, it is still bad when some of the animals have to rotate or stay behind the scenes in holding enclosures.
There are so so many things to avoid that a decent zoo would do.
And yes, they do much for conservation, they really do positive things. But a venture of this magnitude has to do well in all respects or it just fuels the people who are against zoos.
I agree that the tone of this discussion can come of as somewhat harsh, because the welfare standards in Pairi Daiza are by no means horrible and there are many examples of zoos with enclosures that are much worse.
But it looks to me that the problem is this: it's not that other zoos are "allowed" to have bad enclosures, it's just that there are in most cases at least reasons which can explain (not excuse) why a certain situation is what it is. In addition: many European zoos with outdated enclosures tend to show that they are aware that not everything is optimal and that they at least try to do the best they can to improve things. Pairi Daiza on the contrary, calls itself publicly "the best zoo in Europe" and has little budgetary or spatial restraints which prevent them from reaching higher standards than those they use now. I would add thereupon that by being one of the top zoos in Europe when looking at visitor numbers, they have also some sort of examplatory role for other zoos to follow. By being in that position, it could be argued that Pairi Daiza has therefore actually a duty to reach for the highest possible standards instead of settling with a simple "good enough for now". That they instead choose to pump their money in that percieved "bigger plan" to increase their popularity and visitor numbers even more, is something that can one can call into question.
Last edited: