I think your overall summary is fairly spot on, but I'd put Sea Lions into the second tier.
What are the confirmed superstars that zoos can build exhibit capital campaigns on?
- Thread starter DavidBrown
- Start date
I think your overall summary is fairly spot on, but I'd put Sea Lions into the second tier.
KCZooFan
Well-Known Member
While I would agree with you on the lack of big name species in the desert dome, I would not say the same for the Lied Jungle. Hippos, tapirs (not famous, but popular nevertheless), and a plethora of monkeys and gibbons are all fairly popular species.
Completely slipped my mind! Yes, I agree.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Interesting topic. In writing our book (America's Best Zoos), my coauthor (Jon) and I have done a lot of thinking about this. The way I think of this is, "Which animals would cause that family that is driving through the city, on their family vacation/holiday, to stop and see the Zoo? Or alternatively, which animals would cause that business man, who is in town for a few days, to spend a few spare hours going to the local Zoo?
In my opinion, the only animals that, by themselves, meet this criteria are:
1. Giant Pandas; 2. Dolphins/Whales; 3. Koalas (not Australia); and Manatees.
These are all animals which I've seen on billboards, with the Zoo using them to try and draw people in using them.
You may not want to hear this, but some of the "freaks of nature" may actually qualify for this level, including:
1. White Lions; 2. White Tigers; 3. White Alligators
-- I've seen all of these highly promoted by certain zoos over the years.
I'd also say there are certain animals that, if they are breeding, will reach the same level of commercial "pull" --when a new baby is present. These include:
1. Elephants; 2. Gorillas; 3. Lions/Tigers; 4. Polar/Grizzly Bears; 5. Giraffes
In addition, Rhinos and Chimpanzees might qualify for this category too.
Next, I'd say there are some animals that, if exhibited right, can reach the same level of draw, such as:
1. Lemurs -- if in a walk-through exhibit.
2. Hippos -- if in an beautiful underwater-viewing exhibit (ie, San Diego)
3. Polar Bears -- if in an exceptional underwater viewing habitat (ie, Detroit)
Of course there are a few extra exceptional exhibits featuring one particular species that also fit this category, such as:
Phoenix -- squirrel monkeys in Monkey Village
Indianapolis -- shark-petting pool
Cheyenne Mountain -- giraffes in Rift Valley
Edinburgh -- Penguin Parade
Another similar category would be animals that are so active and entertaining that they leave a lasting impression of visitors -- causing them to want to come back:
1. Otters; 2. Baboons; 3. Prairie Dogs; 4. Meerkats; 5. Nutrias (esp. in Europe)
Finally, let me mention some animals that are NOT currently on display (at least not in the USA), but if they ever were, I believe they'd instantly become superstars:
1. Platypuses; 2. Elephant Seals; 3. Narwhals
Monterey Bay Aquarium's sporadic display of a great white shark fits this category.
In my opinion, the only animals that, by themselves, meet this criteria are:
1. Giant Pandas; 2. Dolphins/Whales; 3. Koalas (not Australia); and Manatees.
These are all animals which I've seen on billboards, with the Zoo using them to try and draw people in using them.
You may not want to hear this, but some of the "freaks of nature" may actually qualify for this level, including:
1. White Lions; 2. White Tigers; 3. White Alligators
-- I've seen all of these highly promoted by certain zoos over the years.
I'd also say there are certain animals that, if they are breeding, will reach the same level of commercial "pull" --when a new baby is present. These include:
1. Elephants; 2. Gorillas; 3. Lions/Tigers; 4. Polar/Grizzly Bears; 5. Giraffes
In addition, Rhinos and Chimpanzees might qualify for this category too.
Next, I'd say there are some animals that, if exhibited right, can reach the same level of draw, such as:
1. Lemurs -- if in a walk-through exhibit.
2. Hippos -- if in an beautiful underwater-viewing exhibit (ie, San Diego)
3. Polar Bears -- if in an exceptional underwater viewing habitat (ie, Detroit)
Of course there are a few extra exceptional exhibits featuring one particular species that also fit this category, such as:
Phoenix -- squirrel monkeys in Monkey Village
Indianapolis -- shark-petting pool
Cheyenne Mountain -- giraffes in Rift Valley
Edinburgh -- Penguin Parade
Another similar category would be animals that are so active and entertaining that they leave a lasting impression of visitors -- causing them to want to come back:
1. Otters; 2. Baboons; 3. Prairie Dogs; 4. Meerkats; 5. Nutrias (esp. in Europe)
Finally, let me mention some animals that are NOT currently on display (at least not in the USA), but if they ever were, I believe they'd instantly become superstars:
1. Platypuses; 2. Elephant Seals; 3. Narwhals
Monterey Bay Aquarium's sporadic display of a great white shark fits this category.
I think CGSwans is basically correct. When I'm in the Information Kiosk, I' still get many requests for elephants and a few for giant pandas and polar bears, even though it is several years since these animals existed at London Zoo. Several visitors ask where the gorillas, lions and tigers and the giraffes, snakes, spiders, monkeys and penguins are and there are requests for zebras.
I like it when visitors ask for more obscure species such as uakaris, aye-ayes, wombats and freshwater stingrays. Despite having two separate exhibits, in Animal Adventures and Happy Families, few if any people ask where the meerkats are. A few years ago, the zoo used buses to advertise tamanduas, but I've never been asked where they are.
I don't think manatees are anywhere near this category in the UK.
OrangePerson may be right, although new visitors to the zoo often visit the Information Kiosk to find out where their favourite animals are. I have been asked to choose a route for visitors, but I wonder how many people would want to see the Panay cloudrunners, beaver rats, Cayenne caecilians and bearded barbets. Hopefully, the visitors will show some interest and tell their friends, but I've no proof of this.
Is there any single species ZSL doesn't exhibit that stands out as being asked about more than others? Elephants?
Definately not! Most zoo visitors wouldn't know what a Manatee was. I have only ever seen them exhibited in the UK in London Zoo- circa 1950/60's.
That's not to say a clever campaign organised around 'Mermaids' or 'Sea Sirens/cows might not arouse interest.
When Naples Zoo spread the word about its new honey badger exhibit, many people were very excited thanks to the viral video about honey badgers that is on YouTube.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Exactly! Maybe you can't see them being a big deal in the UK simply because folks don't even know what they are. I think the same would be true in the USA if some zoo were to actually get duckbill platypuses. But a quick TV/billboard campaign would have the whole community all excited about the new manatees/platypuses. And I do believe that out-of-town visitors would pull off the highway to see these attractive and unusual creatures.
As a testament, here in the USA, when SeaWorld first opened their manatee exhibit (in Florida), it was a huge deal -- even though Floridians can go see manatees off of their own shore. It was an even bigger deal when the Ohio zoos, Columbus and Cincinnati, brought manatees to the Midwest. Over in Europe, I was just at the Odense Zoo, in central Denmark, and their manatees are the absolute hit of the Zoo! Same, to a lesser degree, in Burger's Zoo in Arnhem, Netherlands. (That entire zoo, Burger's Zoo, is SO excellent that it's harder for one species to dominate the others.)
I still seem to get more requests for elephants than for other animals no longer at London Zoo. Luckilly, most customers accept the explanation that the elephants are better off at Whipsnade than they were at London Zoo.
When I visited Prague Zoo in 2009, there were several signposts pointing towards the new gharial exhibit. This made a nice change, as I doubt if many people visit zoos expecting to see gharials.
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
As an ex RP volunteer in the 90s (hello, Jonathan!) I vividly remember being asked "where are the bears?". Somehow the sloth bears never really hit the button, so to speak. The koalas at RP never really drew big crowds - but then they were never marketed. Giant pandas were on display at London for most of the post WWII period until 1994, so people took them for granted. Also, they never bred.
It would be interesting to know how many extra visitors would be generated at London by the return of koalas, giant pandas and (say) sun bears, properly marketed.
And I suspect London would have had more commercial impact with either bonobos (never held on site) or orang-utans (only ones presently in SE England are two spare males in a pretty poor set-up in Colchester) than has been achieved by western gorillas, of which half a dozen can be seen on the other side of London at Chessington, and about 80 by the two Aspinall parks in Kent.
It would be interesting to know how many extra visitors would be generated at London by the return of koalas, giant pandas and (say) sun bears, properly marketed.
And I suspect London would have had more commercial impact with either bonobos (never held on site) or orang-utans (only ones presently in SE England are two spare males in a pretty poor set-up in Colchester) than has been achieved by western gorillas, of which half a dozen can be seen on the other side of London at Chessington, and about 80 by the two Aspinall parks in Kent.
Hallo Ian. You're right in saying there were several requests for bears from the time the Mappins were closed until they were reopend with sloth bears. Since the sloth bears left, I have received relatively few requests for bears. I don't believe any species, apart from possibly polar bears or giant pandas, would have the same appeal now.[/QUOTE]
Well, London just proves the point - animal should be interacting with people, active and promoted. Both bears and apes in London were elderly animals, and not too active, isn't it?
There are some rules: species should better be mammal, large, with forward-pointing eyes and bipedal. But its very broad.
I saw quite a lot of zoos, and it is common that species A in one zoo is favorite, but exhibit of B has no visitors, while in another zoo species B is favorite, and A has no visitors.
I written in similar thread before, how in Berlin people crowded in front of Goeffroy's cat kittens playing with the keeper (yes, species looking like a copy of common house cat) but ignored nearby Giant Pandas.
There are some rules: species should better be mammal, large, with forward-pointing eyes and bipedal. But its very broad.
I saw quite a lot of zoos, and it is common that species A in one zoo is favorite, but exhibit of B has no visitors, while in another zoo species B is favorite, and A has no visitors.
I written in similar thread before, how in Berlin people crowded in front of Goeffroy's cat kittens playing with the keeper (yes, species looking like a copy of common house cat) but ignored nearby Giant Pandas.
This is slightly away from the main target of this thread but there are some interesting points here;
1. I absolutely agree about Gianda Pandas, a 2.1 ratio would certainly ensure more sucessful breeding as it would stimulate the males more and give the female a choice of partner. In the wild several males congregate around an oestrus female and the strongest/most persistant suitor wins her attention for mating. Unfortunately the Chinese seem to persist in loaning out just the 'matched' pairs of 1 male and 1 female, some of which later show reduced or no interest when it comes to mating. I doubt any Western Zoo dealing with the Chinese has felt confident enough to request a 2nd male with their alotted pair! Also most zoos have to build seperate 'twin' accomodation to house their pair seperately, as have Edinburgh, so an additional 2nd male animal could pose an additional expensive housing problem, although two males might live together quite happily outside breeding times?
But as far as increasing activity goes- I suspect that outside of the brief courtship and mating periods, that three adult Giant Pandas would show similar activity levels as just a pair...so the advantage of the extra one would only be for breeding purposes.
2. London Apes.
Another reason London moved the Orangutans out was because they were regarded as 'labour intensive'-the big number of animals could not all be kept together as a group, particularly the two adult males and different mothers and their young, so several were probably offshow at any given time, while for a while the Lubetkin house was also given over to them. Its hardly surprising they bred like flies as they started with nine animals gifted to them from Borneo, and even after a couple were sent elsewhere(Vienna) there were still plenty left to breed from.
But Orangutans are difficult to house well-in captivity even with good climbing facilities and masses of space, they still often lie around with the appearance-to the public-of looking lazy or bored (more so than the other Apes, though it is probably only a perception, not reality) and London only had Bornean orangutans which are much the less active species too. Visitors can be critical of the zoo if they perceive 'unhappy' looking animals and I think this factor- they made the poorest display of their three Great Ape species, was also taken into account with the others at the time they were moved.
In my opinion, the current Gorilla kingdom-if it had been designed and used for Orangutans instead of Gorillas as their major Ape species, would have been a poorer exhibit than it is- even with breeding Orangutans. Its not too exciting with the current adult Gorillas, which do very little, but the potential is still there for them to establish a proper breeding group like most other zoos. Then its exhibit value would improve hugely. Chimpanzees or Bonobos would do equally well- the Twycross Bonobo group(s) is often very active and interesting to watch, more so than common chimps as they are quicker and more excitable creatures. They would be my 2nd choice after Gorillas, for London. But they still don't hold the same cachet for the public as an exhibit as Gorillas do, owing just simply to their much smaller size and the impressive bulk of male Gorillas.
Their Gorillas have admittedly had a catalogue of disasters, ever since the 1980's successful breeding and mother-rearing of the two female young from Zaire and Salome- had they kept these longterm with the two mothers and simply exchanged the male, giving them a group of four females to breed from, they could well have have had a thriving group by now. Moving those two young zooborn females to Belfast was a crass mistake and the start of all their problems with establishing a proper group, which still continue to this day. But potentially a Gorilla group would be/is still a bigger draw than any other Ape species and that is why they retained them, I m sure.
Its not the Gorillas that are particularly difficult or slow breeders,as many places prove, just London's outstanding failures to have a successful breeding group due to all the changes and unsuitable animals and losses, and that can still be rectified, I'm quite sure.
In terms of exhibition value/activity I would rate the Great apes in the following order;
1.Gorilla group including young.
2. Bonobo group/Common Chimpanzee group.
3 .Orangutans- and Gorillas without young..
3. Bears. I always thought Sloth Bears were just about the poorest choice of a Bear species with which to relaunch the concept of Bears at London Zoo. They don't look like typical bears, being scruffy and shaggy with odd-looking faces, and they did not use the very large enclosure actively, as expected either. Had another more typical-looking species such as Spectacled Bear been tried, things might have gone better. Sun Bears I don't think are a particularly good choice either-easier to house and rare but people expecting 'big bears' may be disappointed by their very small size.
Last edited:
