Annual Attendance Of The Top 30 European Zoos
- Thread starter snowleopard
- Start date
On page 7 of the book, the author states:
I take it by 'Europe in its original geographical sense' (itself by no means a straightforward definition) he is excluding Turkey east of the waters connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and the states of the Caucasus Mountains: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
I take it by 'Europe in its original geographical sense' (itself by no means a straightforward definition) he is excluding Turkey east of the waters connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and the states of the Caucasus Mountains: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
I never heard about anybody going to Russia to see its zoos. Have you read anybody from Russia commenting about Russian zoos here? Russia is simply culturally closed so it makes no difference.
There are members from Greece, it is easy to chat about zoos in South-East Asia, but no Russia.
There are members from Greece, it is easy to chat about zoos in South-East Asia, but no Russia.
There were at least 2 people from Russia in this forum before, and they looked like real enthusiasts. But the moment they wanted to join the discussions and started to post some photos, some other members here started to be very rude. The posted photos showed some better and some worse enclosures, but only the bad ones got instant attention and the words were very mocking, in the sense of intended insults from the position of prejudice/superiority against the whole nation/teritory. No hints of fair/sensitive critique or praise or even any interest in a discussion or hunger for zooinfos from that part of the world. I was not surprised that those Russian members quickly stopped to contribute.
Well, unfortunate, I must have missed them too fast.
This is unfortunate that bad exhibits always atract most attention, but this is fact of life. Members from Poland post, although somebody compared new building in Polish zoo to a heap of sh*t. There are many people from Asia, although Asian zoos are always panned about bad exhibits, and I am one of few to notice that there are some very good exhibits and innovative concepts which zoos in Europe and USA should watch carefully and copy. If you read posts about London zoo, well... nothing but complaints. Gorillas not breeding, outdated exhibits, few animals... Mostly by Londoners, actually. But this is life, perhaps, and we should live with it.
This is unfortunate that bad exhibits always atract most attention, but this is fact of life. Members from Poland post, although somebody compared new building in Polish zoo to a heap of sh*t. There are many people from Asia, although Asian zoos are always panned about bad exhibits, and I am one of few to notice that there are some very good exhibits and innovative concepts which zoos in Europe and USA should watch carefully and copy. If you read posts about London zoo, well... nothing but complaints. Gorillas not breeding, outdated exhibits, few animals... Mostly by Londoners, actually. But this is life, perhaps, and we should live with it.
Actually, it is incredible to compare attendance of Antwerp Zoo - 1.335.000 with Planckendael - 840.000 in 2009. (ISIS Institution Profiles - ANTWERP)
Planckendael has incomparably more space, better exhibits, more and rarer animals - but receives just 60% of visitors of city zoo in Antwerp.
Planckendael has incomparably more space, better exhibits, more and rarer animals - but receives just 60% of visitors of city zoo in Antwerp.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
I personally went to Russia to tour the Moscow Zoo, so now you've heard of someone! Honestly, I'm a bit shocked by your "makes no difference" conclusion. Russia is Europe's largest nation, both in land area and in population, and Moscow is Europe's largest city. Yes, Russia is a very different nation, culturally, from most of the rest of Europe, but so what? Should we exclude Brazil from South America -- because they don't speak Spanish like most of the rest of the continent? I think that Ian R Robinson actually has the real reason why Russia (and Greece) were excluded from Sheridan's book:
Perhaps because the author hasn't been to Russia and didn't want to..
Another point: Shirokuma gave the following quote from the book:
This makes me wonder why Sheridan excluded Norway's Kristiansand Zoo. I was there just this last summer and I'll attest that it is an excellent zoo! It native animals area features some of the largest and most natural exhibits anywhere. The Zoo is full of high quality exhibits, with a very nice African safari area, a huge tiger habitat, walk-through lemurs, a large chimpanzee troop, and more. The Kristiansand Zoo is a far better zoo than many of the small zoos in Sheridan's book.
Of course this is much more than a zoo, as it is equally a major theme park, with many fun rides, high quality shows, and even an extensive water park. I consider Kristiansand the European version of Disney's Animal Kingdom in Florida (USA). Of course Disney has its detractors, some who refuse to acknowledge the excellence of this, one of the USA's best zoos. Could Sheridan's exclusion of Kristiansand be similar? I doubt it. I think he simply didn't make it all the way to Norway (or Russia, or Greece).
zoogiraffe
Well-Known Member
Perhaps it might have had something to do with the fact that he may never have heard of the place,or that the Director said no to spending time with him,when I last talked to Mr Sheridan I was very surprised at the collection's in the UK he had never heard of and of some of the ones he had but had never visited,yet he included Twycross in the book which is a zoo that certainly doesn't even rank in my top 10 in the UK,and I know a fair number of people that would agree with me on that!!!
In his criteria (I don't have the book to hand) Sheridan bases inclusion on EAZA membership, annual visitor numbers above 500,000 and a broad, representative collection.
He makes exceptions for 'national zoos' in countries with small populations which is how places like Ljublijana, Tallinn and Helsinki are included and places like Odense which are undergoing large buliding programmes with visitor numbers likely to exceed 500,000 in the near future.
But it seems to me that it's less scientific than that.
He makes exceptions for 'national zoos' in countries with small populations which is how places like Ljublijana, Tallinn and Helsinki are included and places like Odense which are undergoing large buliding programmes with visitor numbers likely to exceed 500,000 in the near future.
But it seems to me that it's less scientific than that.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Interesting thought -- and probably quite true.
This honestly reminds me of my experience in writing my first zoo guidebook back in 1994, The Zoo Book: A Guide to America's Best. When we (my publisher and I) went forward with this book, we were very optimistic that we would have some very good sales here in the USA. What we didn't know was that we would have 3 competing books come out in the same year. Most notable of those competing zoo guidebooks was Zoo: Profiles of 102 Zoos, Aquariums, and Wildlife Parks in the United States by Anthony Marshall. Because Marshall (who is today in federal prison, by the way) was a former US Ambassador and on the Board of the Bronx Zoo (and a direct descendent of a Titanic survivor), his personal fame led to higher sales than my book.
But while, in my book, I tried to be very scientific about which zoos I included, it became quite clear that Marshall was much less careful in selecting his "102 zoos". In my opinion, Marshall just took one or two big "zoo trips" across the USA, visiting all of the notable zoos that were on the main road of his journey. Zoos that were too far off the main road (i.e., the Gladys Porter Zoo in southern Texas) were skipped. But then he surprisingly included some teensy-tiny zoos such as the Baraboo Zoo in central Wisconsin.
I think that Sheridan has more in common with Marshall than just their same first name.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Easy answer: Antwerp is one of the more centrally-located zoos I've ever seen -- with its entry gate right off of the city's main central square. It is just minutes from a major metro stop. But Planckendael is way out in the country, maybe 15-20 minutes off of any major highway. It's easy to get to the Antwerp Zoo, but difficult to get to Planckendael.
On top of that, Antwerp has a long and illustrious history, with many beautiful old historic buildings on the zoo grounds. In addition, Antwerp has a more extensive collection of animals. Yes, Planckendael has the larger and better exhibits, but exhibitry isn't everything!
@ANyhuis: I guess we can talk about Sheridans criterias (as we allways can in such cases). But your verdict about him is not fair imo. I never met Anthony Marshall, but I had the pleasure to talk with Mr Sheridan during a media event in Zoo Zurich. I got the impression of him as a very eloquent, well-travelled and open person. I found it also remarkable that he was - as a fair British - very critical against the zoos of its own country (as everyone can see in his list).
I agree with you by the fact, that specially Zoo Moscou should have been taken into account. And in the case of Kristiansand Dyrepark, it is difficult to take it into the list, because - as mentioned - it is MORE a themepark then a zoo. There are themeparks in Europe with just a handfull to a lot of animals (Le Pal in France for example). Where should we draw the line?
I agree with you by the fact, that specially Zoo Moscou should have been taken into account. And in the case of Kristiansand Dyrepark, it is difficult to take it into the list, because - as mentioned - it is MORE a themepark then a zoo. There are themeparks in Europe with just a handfull to a lot of animals (Le Pal in France for example). Where should we draw the line?
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
@zoomaniac,
I wasn't meaning to make a harsh criticism against Mr. Sheridan, and in fact I love his book! I apologize if I came across as overly harsh.
I'm only saying that I think "convenience" had more to do with his selection of zoos for the WZCD book, rather than a careful scientific selection process. This is not necessarily bad, but if I were to write a European zoos guidebook, I would definitely cover ALL of Europe -- including Russia, Greece, and Norway.
I wasn't meaning to make a harsh criticism against Mr. Sheridan, and in fact I love his book! I apologize if I came across as overly harsh.
I'm only saying that I think "convenience" had more to do with his selection of zoos for the WZCD book, rather than a careful scientific selection process. This is not necessarily bad, but if I were to write a European zoos guidebook, I would definitely cover ALL of Europe -- including Russia, Greece, and Norway.
I thought the "what zoos can do" book was interesting enough for statistics, such as size of site, size of collection and future plans/prospects etc. but it was a bit of a boring read for me. I prefer the more anecdotal treatment as in the ironmonger and smith books on uk collections as they gave me a much better feel for the named zoos. As with any book opinions will always be divided and very personal, and any author will be aware of this and are hopefully thickskinned enough to accept this fact.
Last edited:
zoogiraffe
Well-Known Member
Yes he is very well travelled but he has not visited that many collections compared to many people that post on here,I believe if my memory serves me correctly from Leipzig,last year he said he had only visited around 150 collections world wide,which when you consider that we have posters on here that have visited between 400-500 collections,and I myself have visited more collections than his total just in the UK!!
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
In no real sense could Marshall's book be seen as competing with yours, Allen! While I disagree with you on many points, your book is well informed, well written, and good hearted. As has been said on many occasions, it is a 'must read'. Marshall's is one of the most useless volumes in my library. I begrudge it its shelf space, but cannot bring myself to throw it out - not least because it cost a small fortune at a time, many years ago, when I had very little money.
While I'm no fan of his book, I believe Sheridan is an affable fellow, and it's probably rather unfair to compare him to Marshall - the latter was a crook, while I don't think Sheridan will be ending up in prison.
Last edited:
?
I dropped a good $40 or so on Sheridan's book, and frankly, I think it's terrible. For instance, the maps are fuzzy jpegs downloaded off zoo websites, most likely without authorisation. It looks and reads like a vanity publication - I don't doubt Sheridan's enthusiasm, but I do doubt his talent and that of his editors. I have seen better layouts and better editing in campus publications I have worked on. Allen's book, though aimed at casual zoo fans, is much better.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Once again, PLEASE do not misunderstand me -- my brief comparison of the Anthony's (Sheridan and Marshall) had nothing to do with Marshall's criminal tendencies. I was ONLY pointing out that both of them likely made their selections for which zoos should be (or more so, should not be) in their books based, at least somewhat, on "convenience". In Marshall's case, I'm guessing that he left the Gladys Porter Zoo out of his book because he simply didn't want to drive hours out of the way down to the Mexican border to review that zoo. In Sheridan's case, my guess is that the inconvenience and extra expenses (airfare, $200 Visa, hotel) of getting to Moscow helped him decide not to include the Moscow Zoo in his book. The fact that Greece is way out of the way probably also influenced his decision to exclude the very interesting Attica Zoo.
By the way, Sooty, thanks for the compliments on my book!
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
I have very mixed feelings about the inclusion of the maps in Sheridan's book. I was at first very excited to see them, and to a degree, they are fun to look at. In fact, I was a bit jealous, wondering if and how I could also include zoo maps in my own future zoo guidebooks. But CGSwans is right, the maps are so fuzzy and the print in them is so small that they are hard to make out what is written in them -- at least without an extra magnifier.
If he included these maps without authorization, couldn't he get in serious legal trouble for that? Not a good idea to annoy the very zoos you are writing about!