Should zoos go for purely public pleasing?

Simon McGlary

Simon McGlary

Well-Known Member
Should zoos shape their collections around what the public want to see or purely endangered species? Or perhaps it is much more complex thatn that and it is enthusiasts like here on ZooChat, volunteers and others in the zoo community that can enthuse the public how amazingly diverse the modern zoo is?

My local zoo, Edinburgh, is often levelled with the criticism that it doesn't have crowd pleasing animals like elephants or giraffes or (worse still) meerkats! I like to point out that, particularly with giraffes and elephants, the hillside location isn't suitable for them.

From what I see and hear at Edinburgh, modern zoos should be, and many are, changing there collections to animals which are increasingly endangered. One of the other criteria seems to be ones that can be studied on cognitive behaviour research programmes. More importantly, animals for whom the zoos natural climate is suitable for the animals.

I think it shows the difficulty zoos face in getting a suitable balance, but also the challenge on building interest from the general public.

It would be interesting to hear other peoples thought.
 
I think often from a business side that popular animals are required (or at least thought to be required) but that the endangered mustalso be included to 'justify' the role of zoos. Both are true and thr roles of zoos is a complex affair. It is (and should be) a fantastic day out - for this many people expect the crowd pleasers, but zoos should be serious institutions to inspire, educate and contribute to conservation. reflecting this most modern zoos haveequally diversecoleltions of both the crowd pelasers and the endangered.

Theorectically a zoo could make such an inspirational, magical and exciting exhibit for a mundane mouse (there is a common story somewhere in the zoo community about the toad exhibit thing ...i cant remeber exactly). so a zoo might not necessarily need all (or any) of the major crowd pleasers.
 
One of the two zoos in my city of Tucson, the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum, has only native (sonoran desert) wildlife and therefore does NOT have any of the so-called required popular animals (giraffes, tigers, elephants, lions, chimpanzees, etc). Yet they are probably the number one tourist attraction in our area and are consistently rated by various sources as one of the nation's best zoos. So if you do it right, you do NOT need the most popular animals.

Having said that, the other zoo in my city (the one I volunteer at), Reid Park Zoo, does have many of the popular animals. If we tried to get rid of the giraffes or lions or tigers I am sure there would be an uproar (not just from the members but from my fellow docents). I think part of the reason a moderate sized city like Tucson can have two successful zoos is because they are so different.

As the initial post seemed to be hinting at, it is a delicate balance. I think some of both (popular as well as obscure) is the best way to go. As was also hinted at, if it is done right even an ordinary animal can be made intriguing. (I think it was William Conway who made the toad example you alluded to). I know when I was at London Zoo for the first time, people seemed just as interested in the insect house as they were at the large animal exhibits.
 
I always look at it as striking a compromise. For example, bringing in endangered subspecies/species of a popular group. A giraffe is a giraffe to the public, but to conservation efforts a Rothschild is more justified than a Reticulated. I managed to work out that you could have endangered/uncommon animals all through you zoo and still retain ABC animals.
 
I'm not playing devils advocate - I sincerely and quite strongly believe that the public overwhelmingly accepts the absence of virtually any animal in a collection.

I see this argument arise again and again when people try and justify their local zoo maintaining elephants or some other species that seems otherwise unsuitable for their climate/facilities etc.

But the fact is I can spin a huuuuuge list of popular and reputable zoos that have highly noticeable absences. Does Adelaide Zoo struggle without elephants? Does Singapore Zoo struggle to justify their lack of gorillas. Most of the mainstream urban zoos in Australia do not house rhinos. And then there are all the massively popular Zoos that have a theme and thus do not house a vast array of certain species.

We only ask for animals A-Z at our local zoo because we have come to expect that. Because that is what zoos since their inception have strived for and delivered. But take away an elephant and the public quickly comes to accept that, and move on. Especially if you fill the elephant exhibit with meerkats!

A lack of creativity and vision and competition for prestige amongst zoo management is what continues to drive the same boring old collection planning we have seen for centuries. Not the public. There are far too many examples of successful zoos that run on different models or lack "keystone" species to argue otherwise.
 
I agree with the idea of striking a balance. But it is important to note why the Zoo itself exists. If it is a charity then arguably the benefit of 'crowd pleaser/drawers' will be to support the conservation and preservation/breeding/research work that the Zoo does. The money goes into that. Unfortunately though, a lot of Zoos and Aquaria exists purely to make money for shareholders, and are owned by massive private equity firms so they will balance the expenditure say of £150,000 on a new enclosure to make back £300,000 in ticket sales and take the profit. All the while they will be looking for that 1% saving on food and welfare costs/staff wages. Thats the reality. So, look at why your Zoo exists and what they are trying to achieve. A lot just exist to sell tickets, and they dont really care what animal/enclosure does that, so long as it does.
 
Last edited:
OscarOtter said:
Unfortunately though, a lot of Zoos and Aquaria exists purely to make money for shareholders, and are owned by massive private equity firms...
Click to expand...

That must be something unique to the UK or Europe (or other parts of the world), because in the U.S. that is (I think) very rare. Other than a few animal theme parks like Disney, Busch Gardens and Sea World, zoos in the U.S. are either non-profit entities or government run.
 
My thoughts...

The 80/20 rule applies I think... especially in Australia where even Government run zoos need the "attactions" to get visitors in as gate receipts are important sources of funds.

One of the reasons our zoos work here is that we have a mix of smaller (in land size) urban zoos, with larger "plains" zoos housing those bigger animals like Rhinos etc. In Victoria we have Melbourne Zoo and Werribee Open Range, NSW Has Taronga and Western plains etc. Having both allows the specialization, which maybe explains what Arizona Docent has explained about Tuczon.

In relation to the 80/20 reference... 80% of you funds are going to come from popular exhibits, the ones which you can base your marketting around. These need make up only 20% of your total exhibits though... for example peacock mentioned that Adelaide doesn't have Elephants - that's true, but they do have Pandas and that is what their marketing is based around. Mogo Zoo on the Central Coasts bases it's marketting around it's population of White Lions. Melbourne is now basing it's advertising around the two new baby Elephants... Australia Zoo the Saltwater Crocodile...these are the hooks that will get the punter in, and the $ they generate will fund the research, breeding programs etc of the other exhibits.

Great zoos will then take advantage of that to educate the visitor about the lesser know endangered animals they are breeding.

"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." :)
 
I personally think there needs to be a balance. For example you can have the megafauna everyone loves but you can show some more obscure animals along with them.
 
It is all about balance. It seems to me that a zoo needs to have at least one crowd-pleaser in it. For example, the Minnesota Zoo has animals from cold climates in all of their outdoor exhibits. Even though many members of the public are not familiar with Mongolian wild horses, goitered gazelles, and musk-oxen, this zoo is able to exhibit them and do well. I don't know if they advertise themselves as being a "cold weather" zoo, but that is what they have. However, I do wonder if they would do as well as they do without having Amur tigers and Amur leopards since those are crowd-pleasers. You can go without having all of the major crowd-pleasers, as this one proves without having elephants, lions, giraffes, zebras, etc.

I also agree with the statement that more space does need to be reserved for endangered species. As mentioned before, to the public a giraffe is a giraffe so why not have more Rothschild's instead of reticulated? Why not have more Grevy's zebras instead of plains zebras, or have more Asiatic lions instead of African lions?
 
elefante said:
It is all about balance. It seems to me that a zoo needs to have at least one crowd-pleaser in it. For example, the Minnesota Zoo has animals from cold climates in all of their outdoor exhibits. Even though many members of the public are not familiar with Mongolian wild horses, goitered gazelles, and musk-oxen, this zoo is able to exhibit them and do well. I don't know if they advertise themselves as being a "cold weather" zoo, but that is what they have. However, I do wonder if they would do as well as they do without having Amur tigers and Amur leopards since those are crowd-pleasers. You can go without having all of the major crowd-pleasers, as this one proves without having elephants, lions, giraffes, zebras, etc.

I also agree with the statement that more space does need to be reserved for endangered species. As mentioned before, to the public a giraffe is a giraffe so why not have more Rothschild's instead of reticulated? Why not have more Grevy's zebras instead of plains zebras, or have more Asiatic lions instead of African lions?
Click to expand...

Yeah Beardsley makes it work with only Amur Tigers (although they're soon to have Amur Leopards) as the big "ticket" species. While Lions, Tigers, Hippos, rhinos, gorillas, Giraffes, and elephants are also nice to see, I do love seeing the more unique and not so known species.

As for the endangered species, I don't think zoos should be carrying and breeding as many 'Least Concern' species as they do. For example, I'd much rather see a zoo breeding and keeping Key Deer than Eastern White-Tails. As for the Lions, I think both African and Asiatic Lions need breeding programs. In terms of the Asiatic Lion, they are severely inbred in both captivity and the wild and something needs to be done quick or we're going to loose them in zoos.

~Thylo:cool:
 
ThylacineAlive said:
For example, I'd much rather see a zoo breeding and keeping Key Deer than Eastern White-Tails.
Click to expand...

This is where elefante's statement about the Minnesota Zoo comes in. Key Deer probably fare much better in warmer climates, while Eastern White-Tails can go through almost any environment. Also, a zoo might keep Eastern White-Tails because they are formerly wild animals that can't be released back into the wild for various reasons. Also, it seems that Key Deer are also only typically kept for the same reason I mentioned about non-releasable animals, only they're kept in mainly Florida.
 
@ ThylacineAlive, you are right, African lions do need to bred in captivity as well. I had never thought of Key deer being bred in zoos. I suppose Coues deer would be another neat white-tailed variety to have in a zoo.

@BeardsleyZooFan I like the idea of non-releasable native wildlife in zoos as well. Sometimes that really is the last hope for some of them.
 
Arizona Docent said:
That must be something unique to the UK or Europe (or other parts of the world), because in the U.S. that is (I think) very rare. Other than a few animal theme parks like Disney, Busch Gardens and Sea World, zoos in the U.S. are either non-profit entities or government run.
Click to expand...

Yeah the British must really love their zoos for their zoos to be mostly for profit ventures.

A lot of zoos in the US have now came full circle. Once were city owned but are now a non-profit and the city gives a tax deductible donation to the zoo as well as rent free use of the facilities. That is why you are seeing at the zoos that are thriving you see a lot more corporate sponsored exhibits, because of tax breaks.
 
The Basic whitetail deer should have something to classify itself other than Least Concern, they are about as least concern as the domestic cow.
 
tschandler71 said:
The Basic whitetail deer should have something to classify itself other than Least Concern, they are about as least concern as the domestic cow.
Click to expand...

True, but so was the passenger pigeon. ;) I don't really like the conservation status term "least concern" because I think it wrongly gives the impression that the species will be safe forever because it is as resilient as a cockroach. Maybe a better term might be something like ... "Not threatened at present". Who do I talk to change the term? :)
 
nanoboy said:
True, but so was the passenger pigeon. ;) I don't really like the conservation status term "least concern" because I think it wrongly gives the impression that the species will be safe forever because it is as resilient as a cockroach. Maybe a better term might be something like ... "Not threatened at present". Who do I talk to change the term? :)
Click to expand...

a good term would be vermin.
 
I have always had the belief that the general public is a poor measurement to determine what makes a good or bad choice for a zoo animal. I believe your average guest visits a zoo or aquarium for the experience as a whole - sure they may say, if asked, "oh we are here for the elephants or the orangutans"... but should those animals be off exhibit I doubt the guest would walk away feeling cheated.
Here is a recent example - On a recent visit to the Portland Zoo I was pleased to see that the fruit bat exhibit was PACKED with people. It wasn't surprising why since the bats were extremely active, showing a wide range of behaviors everywhere you looked. The exhibit was well thought out. It was a semi-circle enclosure that allowed the bats to surround the guests so there was always something going on right in front of you. People stayed at the exhibit for a long time. Now, had you asked any of these guests before they entered the zoo what they were most excited to see you would probably have gotten the usual suspects - lions, elephants, apes... yet guests spent (from my observations) much more time at the bats, and not just watching but engaging with each other about what they were seeing. At the lions, elephants and apes the guests stood for a moment or two before moving on. There is a study that went around that showed your average guest spent less than 2 minutes at any given exhibit. In a big zoo or aquarium I believe that is the case.
So to bring this back to the original idea - I believe zoos need to be more focused on telling a story and not worry so much about the shotgun method of animal collections. I noticed the San Diego zoo and safari park are leaning more toward this method - in their case it's primarily African and Asian species. Arizona Sonoran Desert Museum and Monterey Bay are great examples of this kind of thinking and it certainly pays off for them. Or the Palm Springs Desert zoo which just focuses on desert animals. Be specific and focus on telling one great story and guests will love it.
 
ThylacineAlive said:
I find White-Tailed Deer beautiful and majestic animals. They're simply amazing and anything but vermin. I'm sure many on here would say Humans are the real world's vermin.

~Thylo:cool:
Click to expand...

they are beautiful and amazing creatures I was talking about their population numbers. If you were following the context of the conservation we were talking about how whitetail are Least Concern when there should be a term for less than least concern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top