Do You Have To See The Whole Zoo?

birdsandbats

birdsandbats

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
Recently I was near Brookfield Zoo with my family for non-zoo related reasons, doing other things, and my family, knowing I like zoos, suggested we stop in at Brookfield for a couple hours when we had some time. I told them that I wasn't really interested because a couple hours is not enough time to see the entire zoo. They thought I was crazy for this opinion and fundamentally did not understand why I would rather skip out on the zoo then not see all of it. They felt that some zoo must be better than no zoo. But I disagree.

Upon reflection, these are the reasons I think I feel this way:

-A zoo is only done "properly" if most or all of the facility is seen, and I did not want to visit the zoo "improperly".
-Having limited time at a zoo would require prioritizing certain animals over others, and making the choice of seeing certain animals over others would drive me crazy.

Of course, I don't literally insist on visiting every part of a zoo every time I go. I will occasionally skip areas that only have domestic animals or areas with an extra fee.

I regularly skip exhibits at my most visited zoo, Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary, which I average about one a visit a month too. But pretty much other zoos, even ones I visit multiple times a year, I do insist on seeing the entire zoo when I'm there, with occasional exceptions as noted above.

Does anyone else feel this way? Why or why not?
 
When I am visiting a new zoo, I will always be sure to see the entirety of it, barring domestics-devoted zones as, although I respect their educational value in zoos, I have never found them all that interesting. For example, last year, I visited 6 zoological collections for the first time, and was sure not to leave out a single exhibit at any of them except the Children's Farmyard at Cotswold Wildlife Park and the Zoolino (children's zoo) at Zurich, although in the case of the latter, I did have time to walk through it, but very briefly and paying little attention to the animals, simply using it as an alternate pathway to Masoala that allowed me to say I had seen the whole zoo.

However, if I am returning to London or Whipsnade, which I have visited on 22 and 9 occasions respectively throughout my lifetime, and know very well, I will be more than happy to leave some things out. With Whipsnade I try to see everything, but am never all that bothered if I don't manage to in time, as I have seen it plenty of times, and not worrying about this allows me to see everything at a calmer and more orderly pace. However, at London, I will often skip anything which hasn't had any noteworthy change since my last visit, with the exception of Blackburn Pavilion (my favourite zoo exhibit in the world, and as such, not somewhere that I would want to skip under any circumstance!).
 
When planning a zoo visit I always allow myself enough time to see everything regardless of whether it is a new zoo or one I know well. Even with my local regular zoos, you never know when there might be something unexpected that hasn't been announced yet.

In the given scenario though, where I could have the chance to visit a new zoo to fill some time I still would take the opportunity to visit. I would prioritise any new species, species I have not seen for a while or exhibits the zoo is famous for.
 
It’s all or nothing. Because of half-waying (to put it professionally) I have had terrible misses such as seeing alpine chamois in Tama, and the Tyrollean farm in Schönbrunn. I of course don’t mind skipping areas in my local zoo that I don’t find interesting.
 
This is a good topic and I agree with @birdsandbats because, in many ways, I'd rather see the whole zoo or not go at all. Regular Muggles shake their heads at such thoughts, as obviously they are more than happy to drop by zoos for a couple of hours and move on with their lives. Zoo nerds need time to see every darn enclosure, even ones up hills or down in valleys.

(Of course, for a local zoo where someone might have an annual membership and visit consistently, then skipping sections is totally feasible)
 
Been interesting to read how many people feel the same way as OP... I have a different perspective.

I do prefer getting to see the whole zoo over a partial visit, and if I'm planning my own visit I will try to budget enough time to see everything. That being said, when the opportunity arises for even a partial visit I will absolutely still take it - especially if the visit is free or cheap. Sometimes you just don't have all day for a "proper" visit, and I'd rather have any amount of zoo than no zoo.

As an example: the only time I've gotten to visit Omaha I only had half a day to spare, and so there were parts of the zoo I missed. Do I wish I'd gotten to see the whole zoo? Of course. Do I regret going to Omaha and wish I'd skipped it entirely? Definitely not.

As for the second part - about not being able to prioritize where to spend my time - I don't have problems with that either. I know what animals I like and don't get to see often; those are my targets. Distance is a factor too, I'd typically rather see more animals close to the entrance than waste time marching across the zoo for a handful.
 
If it's a new zoo or one that I've only visited once or twice before then I want to cover the whole collection, likewise if it's somewhere I'm familiar with but I'm with someone who hasn't been before. Zoos I'm overly familiar with the I'm quite happy to just prioritise the big (personal) draws and then see what I can cover afterwards.
The only exception to this in the past few years is going to London during the pandemic and having to leave the zoo to get to the British Museum after seeing about two thirds of the collection, but that was due to the inconvenience of having to book time slots for both attractions.
 
As a species collector, I’ll head first for whatever new lifer species the zoo can bring me or otherwise go photograph ones that are rare in captivity. Species common in captivity I’ll put at lowest priority and only photograph if they happen to be in favorable positions or are exhibiting interesting behaviors. So no, I don’t have to see the whole zoo, but rather my goal is to photograph the target species I planned for.
 
If it is a new zoo it would be great to see everything. If I ran out of time at a new zoo though I would rather miss an area than see it like a drive by. When I first went to Chester there were a couple of areas I failed to see as I was enthralled by other things. Rushing ruins a day for me.

For collections I visit regularly (eg Whipsnade, which I visited 17 times in 2023, for example) I will often target particular animals or areas, spending a day in the European area, or waiting for the panda cub,s or to see the new crane chick, lion watching or going to all the bird shows or what have you. I will usually take a spin round most things though.

I enjoy photography and that along with observing the animals (and indeed admiring the exhibitry) is the purpose of my visit so that contributes to any targeted viewing.

I repeat visit zoos to see particular animals, or exhibits. I don't think I have a really good view of things until I have been to a collection at least a couple of times. Equally I have no real notion of whether I have done a zoo 'properly' just whether I had a great day out.
 
When I miss some parts of large zoos, I usually visit the zoo again the next day if I missed part of it the first day. Although it may be expensive, it is 100% worth doing. This is only usually the case with zoos with high species counts, such as both San Diego parks, Bronx, National, and Omaha, all of which have massive animal collections. For example, when I went to San Diego Zoo in 2021, I returned the day after my visit because I didn't have the time to see the hummingbird habitat and Discovery Outpost, so I went the next day to finish the zoo off.
 
I think it just depends on why you are visiting the zoo. If you want the full experience, you spend the full time the zoo is open and visit every nuck and cranny no matter what species are exhibited. On the other hand if you are looking for target species you may skip enclosures of species that you have seen countless times before and you can prioritize what you want. Judging general exhibit standards and how the collection is keeping their species will also make you want to visit every inch of the collection.


I personally am one for spending as much time as possible at the given collection no matter whether it is my first time or my 10th time visiting. A collection like Chester is one I visit once annually and I make sure to scour the site as there is always something new or put back on display that I haven't yet seen in since my very first visit at the age of 2. However, I am very much a committed species collector so skipping the ABCs and other species I have previously seen gives me the time to see my targets. I of course, if time allows enjoy watching species I have seen previously especially if the photo I have of them isn't of decent enough quality or a species I have a particular liking to.
 
The only zoo I don't 100% every time is the Minnesota Zoo (my most frequently visited local zoo). Visited today and we actually skipped the Minnesota Trail... though mostly because my buddy had a headache and wanted to head out a bit early. There's a few other exhibits that I skim over, but broadly speaking I try to at least see everything. I suppose I don't 100% the Como Zoo every time if you include the conservatory, but I try to at least see all their animals (a fairly easy task). I'll sometimes skip the hoofstock building if I'm with friends- the smell is an acquired taste.

If I'm traveling more than an hour to a zoo then I'm gonna 100% it every time regardless of price of entry. I do agree with the "get your moneys worth" sentiment though... some zoos are expensive! Especially if you include food/travel/merch.

"A few hours" is kind of broad though. I think there's always gonna be a big difference in "zoo approach" in hobbyists/enthusiasts vs the general public. Zooing with my non-hobby friends is definitely a hastier experience.

I will say though that I don't mind skimming over some exhibits when I'm traveling. Some animals just don't really tickle my fancy! They're all beautiful but I guess for me, "Hit all the zoo but skim over some exhibits" is better than "don't visit the zoo at all because giving equal measure to all habitats would take too long"
 
If it is a first visit, I generally want to see everything (still I'll usually skip animatronic dinosaurs and always bypass "bug" zoos). Once I'm familiar with the zoo, I've been known to skip Reptiles and Primates. If I'm really familiar with the zoo and only have a short-time to visit, I'll target the exhibits I most want to check in on and skim the rest.
 
When I am visiting a new zoo, ideally yes, but its made complicated by the fact that my primary motive for visiting zoos is photography. For me, animal photography is most fulfilling when I dedicate a long time to the animal to really come to appreciate every aspect of them- their mannerisms, how they interact with their environment, how the light hits them, and other really specific stuff like that. This is especially true when photographing new species. While I would like to see every part of the zoos I visit, I prioritize having a fulfilling photography experience, and sometimes I have to skip sections to maximize my time with each species I photograph. This happened at the San Diego zoo. I did skip some sections in the name of having more time with my target species. I really wish I had more time there. As for visits to my home zoo, I make absolutely no effort to see the whole thing every time. I used to, but as I have really started to spend more time with the animals I photograph, I have really stopped treating visits like that.
 
If the zoo is new to me or one I haven't visited recently, I agree that I would *want* to see everything. That said, I would agree with @Coelacanth18 that I'd much rather see part of a zoo than skip a visit entirely if I have limited time. If time is limited, I also don't want to make the "fear of missing out" limit my visit or make it less enjoyable. Even if I only have a little time at a zoo, if a particular exhibit is really impressive or a particular animal is behaving in an interesting fashion, then I'll spend some time to stop and take it all in even if that may mean I can see less of the overall zoo.

If it's a zoo I visit frequently, I don't mind missing sections. For example, I visit Rosamond Gifford Zoo a few times a year, and last year I had one visit on an unexpectedly busy day. Given the crowds, I skipped some of the indoor exhibits which have narrower pathways and can easily get loud, and instead focused on some of the outdoor areas that handle crowds better- and then a few months later on a quieter day got to spend a lot more time inside. No harm, no foul. I had a separate visit to Rosamond Gifford Zoo where the opposite happened: there was an unexpected rain storm so I skipped past some of the outdoor areas, but instead got to really appreciate some of the indoor areas (this was my only time ever seeing the large hairy armadillo active). For some zoos that I visit frequently, there are sections that I tend to skip frequently simply because I'm not a big fan of them.

Regardless of the zoo, I seldom spend much time in domestics-themed areas, although I will take a quick look and am partial to a well-designed farm exhibit. I don't tend to spend much time looking at large carnivores either unless they are particularly active. If I'm visiting alone, playground areas/nature play sections only get a quick glance too, although I do find them to be a valuable part of zoos.
 
Pleistohorse said:
(still I'll usually skip animatronic dinosaurs and always bypass "bug" zoos
Click to expand...

Didn't even consider approaching this from a "what exhibits do you skip/would you skip if you needed to" angle. I care exceptionally little about bugs and am generally fine skipping over small reptiles/amphibians (smaller than a bread box) and anything artificial is definitely a pass lol. I usually don't mind passing by large carnivores if they're just snoozing.

Surprised to see so many folks skipping the domestics! I love petting things haha so maybe I'm biased, but I always hike out to the farm portion of my local zoo.

On the other side of things, I hate skipping past primates. They're my biggest must-see. Malayan tapirs as well- generally I really have to see whatever the zoo's "tropical trail" zone is.
 
For me, seeing the entire zoo is a must. You may never know what surprises a zoo has in store that can easily be missed if you skip around (very nearly missed the chacoan peccaries at Elmwood the other day because I accidentally "skipped" them). This is especially true for first-time visits; if I am traveling to visit a zoo, I never know when I will get another opportunity to visit the zoo, so I must make the most of it.

I never run into the issue of "being short on time and doing only partial visits' because I always dedicate entire days towards doing zoos and I never plan nor end up in a situation where I am only ever afforded half a day. Zoos are dedicated all-day affairs for me (I just spent 12 straight hours in the National Aquarium earlier this month; I am not kidding when I say make the most of it).

That said, if you live close enough to a facility to where you visit very frequently, then I see no reason why you wouldn't do a partial visit because there is no reason to do full visits every single time. I visit the Museum of Natural Sciences in Raleigh frequently and I rarely tour the entire museum. Especially if said facility also has something new or changed; you can focus your energy on the new stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top