Bristol Zoo (Closed) bristol zoo - appalling!

L

leiclad20

Well-Known Member
10+ year member
Hello all, Just thought id share some thoughts on my local bristol zoo which i visted today for the first time in about 3 or 4 years.

I have been coming here since I was born. i know that conditions until recetnly were quite poor but the fact of the matter is is that when only 15-20 years ago when i was very small i could go there and see gorillas, orang utans, tigers, lions, leopards, giraffes, zebra, polar bears, elephants etc etc. Thankfully, over the last 15 years things have gotten better but now its seems, its gone completely the wrong way.

In short, the whole place is just a huge childrens playground with at £14 admission fee. Many parts of the zoo, such as the herbaceous border and gardens near the guthrie road entrance have been cannabalised for exhibits for small animals and play areas. In fact, the 'gardens' aspect of the zoo seems to have been gradually dumped. All the small hidden paths and picnic areas have mostly gone, and the lawns are now taken up with mazes/play areas and retail (food, basically). The rose garden is now a small inflatable butterfly house and bland patio outside.

I even think the animals are starting to take a back seat role apart from those in the houses and notable crowd pullers - eg:

-all the rare birds inside the wallace aviary are now in small avairies on the site of the old penguin enclosure and wooded aviaries next to it (and all the vegetation torn away, god knows why). Now the wallace aviary is home to rainbow lorikeets - with food for sale.

-the childrens zoo has gone, its now a bigger play area.

-3 of the lake islands were now empty.

-the old south american paddock is only used for prairie dogs, and the old peccary one next door now houses a portacabin. The whole area looked terrible. The flower beds in the area have been gotten rid of.

-the tropical bird house is very sparesly populated. The area outside is now a large play area of sorts.

-the lakeside path behind the old meerketa pen has been lost and their is now a huge meerkat area in its place.Its a good enclosure, but the intimate paths and vegetation that was there has been lost.

-a huge aerial assault course has been constructed around gorilla island. I bet jock loves that!

-all over the zoo are pictures of what the zoo was like in years gone by - worryingly, theres even photos of the zoo 5 or so years ago.

and its worth mentioning that soem of the newer exhibits looked very unkempt - eg gorilla island, the lion pen and seal.penguin coasts needed a good clean.

I appreciate that bringing in families is a source of income, but the zoo aspect seems to becoming a smaller focus now, and there were retail/food outlets everywhere and play areas everywhere you turn. The zoo used to be spacious for visitors, beautifully presented and gardened, with windy paths for you to explore and hidden picnic areas. Now, its a few animal exhibits (zona brazil, gorilla island, meerkats, seal coasts, lions, twilight world, reptile house, bug world, aquarium, monkey jungle) which we walked around in 2hrs.

Id be interested to hear what other people have thought of this zoo. Next time, ill go to cotswold wildlife park/noahs ark and spend less oney to get in and see 10 tiems the amount!
 
Well, I for one disagree.

I think Bristol has overall one of the highest standards of exhibits in Britain - there are basically no bad exhibits from an animal POV, one of the nicest zoo aquariums, one of the nicest zoo reptile houses, one of the best Nocturnal Houses and certainly the best Invertebrate House in the UK - in fact Bristol all round has a particularly well-balanced collection. Seal and Penguin Coasts and the lions looked fine when I was there. The zoo has a very comfortable relationship with its own history (those history boards are for the 175th anniversary this year, so cover the whole period), which is very refreshing. Even the food is better than average.

The one area that doesn't quite work for me is Zona Brazil, which feels a bit half-hearted. I sympathise with you on the Wallace Aviary, but lorikeets are a great animal exhibit for the general public. I just ignore the play areas.

I wonder if going in the school holidays was a mistake? Maybe on a quieter day you'd have had a different experience.

(As an aside, Cotswold and Bristol are both superb - the less I talk about Noah's the better for everyone's state of mind! But you won't see 10 times the amount there, even if they do have a few more larger species.)
 
I went a couple of weeks ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. Apart from the gorillas, the fruit bats flying round you are stunning, the aye-ayes are a thrill and I thought there were some nicely planted areas. I really like the heavy vegetation on the gorilla island We really enjoyed the butterfly house. One of the pelicans was entertaining trying to scoop up fish from the lake.
It may have change from what you knew but although I have no interest in play areas I happily filled a day and a half!
I think they really make the most of a relatively small site. I also really like Cotswold but wouldn't go to Noah's Ark.
 
I have commented on here before about the fact that Bristol has become extremely 'child friendly' in recent years with increasing amounts of 'play' areas and other diversions. But I think that's a trend to be found in other UK zoos also, though most perhaps haven't reached the same degree as at Bristol(yet).
 
I disagree, I like Bristol.
I think it has very high standards of animal care and is keeping animals suited to a collection of its size, I don't think elephants or polar bears are suited to Bristol zoo and I'm rather pleased they don't keep them anymore.
There bird collection is pretty good, lorikeets are good ambassadors for parrots. Although most British collections are rather uninspired about birds.
 
I understand leiclad20's comments and I agree in part, but I feel there is some contradiction in his argument.
I don't think that Bristol Zoo has ever been 'spacious for visitors' (except perhaps in the memories of people who visited as small children): its site is very small and confined. The zoo cannot simply accommodate a wide range of large species in decent enclosures and its traditional gardens and the sort of facilities visitors expect today.

The other side of the coin is Hollywood Towers: the society has the land and the plans for a first rate state-of-the-art zoo. I'm sure we all hope that sufficient finance will be available to let them start work soon.
In these circumstances, although it is possible to criticise the decision to put so much emphasis on attracting families with young children to the Zoo, it is hard to see any other options that would make sense in the long term. In consequence there is bound to be pressure on the lawns and herbaceous borders as there has to be space to let the children let off steam. I have wondered what the gorillas make of the kids on the ropewalk, but they don't seem to be disturbed.
I think leiclad may have been unlucky to see 3 of the islands without animals, they do seem to move species around on some of them. I think they are good exhibits, particularly the ones for tamarins and Gouldi's monkeys. Likewise I can't think of any enclosures that I would describe as unkempt, except perhaps the penguin breeding area during the breeding season. I agree with maguari that Zona Brasil is not up to the same standard as the other exhibits, but it is due to be replaced soon and the plans for the southern part of the zoo look interesting, (they were linked to a previous thread).
Cotswold Wildlife Park is one of my favourite zoos, I always enjoy my visits there and I recommend it heartily, but I enjoy visiting Bristol too.

Alan
 
I also have to disagree I'm afraid. I regularly visit Bristol and spend about four hour there on a visit.
I'm not keen on giving space over to kids play areas but I begrudgingly accept it. The ropewalk (seen at several zoos now) I think is a good use of space, the lawns I always considered a waste of space and it's good to see they've reduced in size over the years (even the maze is better than grass). The gardens are probably the nicest of any zoo (I spent half an hour on my last visit sitting enjoying the herbaceous border.) Certainly there are areas of the zoo that lack animals and I'd like this to change but generally I find the zoo to be attractive, vibrant and having a good collection of animals for a zoo of its size. I believe the Photos around the zoo are part of the 175 year celebration so may only be temporary.
I really can't see what would be preferable about Noah’s ark as grounds are basic, lacking any horticultural interest, the animal accommodation is equally basic and the whole place can be comfortably view in an hour or so.
 
Ned said:
I think is a good use of space, the lawns I always considered a waste of space and it's good to see they've reduced in size over the years (even the maze is better than grass). The gardens are probably the nicest of any zoo (I spent half an hour on my last visit sitting enjoying the herbaceous border.)
Click to expand...


I have to agree the zoo keeps a nice mix of traditional formal gardening and decent landscaping in the enclosure.
Very refreshing to see zoos keeping elements of there formal gardens.
 
I went to Bristol Zoo a couple of weeks ago on a very busy day. I still enjoyed the zoo. I really liked their nocturnal house. Especially the naked mole rats also the lovely fruit bats in an exhibit from just outside there.
 
Last edited:
Personally Bristol zoo is one of my favourites in UK, nearly every inch exudes a high standard of design and care. The interactive features (lorikeets, Play areas, rope walk etc) all makes for a relaxed and interesting walk where a visitor feels like actually part of the zoo rather than a spectator looking in.
 
Re the gorillas' thoughts on the rope thing, when I visited Jersey back in Jambo's time there was a sign suggesting the gorillas were entertained to see kids playing on the climbing frames next to the enclosure. It doesn't seem particularly intrusive.
 
I really can't see what's not to like about Bristol. It's certainly not appalling. I admit to not going during school holidays, but i can't see anything at Bristol that i would call appalling. i've been giving it a lot of thought, the only thing i can say i'm not to fussed on is the Monkey Jungle, because lets face it it isn't. The Aquarium puts Chesters to shame. The seal and Peguin Coasts puts Living Coasts to shame, The bug house, i can't think of an equal. same goes for the nocturnal house.
 
I remember Bristol from the 1970s and 80s. I loved the horticultural aspect but was, to borrow a word from the thread title, "appalled" by many of the animal exhibits. The zoo has a finite amount of space and to see so much of it occupied by empty lawns and a big lake while large bear species, hippopotami and elephants were crammed into tiny quarters was quite an eye-opener.

Today I think Bristol's animal exhibits are of a much higher standard, there are very few that can be criticised from a husbandry standpoint and that factor alone means that the zoo has actually improved in my eyes over the last twenty-thirty years.

However, you won't hear any argument from me on the downward spiral of Bristol's horticulture - although the "bare earth" policy introduced in other high-profile zoos over the last ten years has been significantly worse - or the all-purveying increase in childrens' play areas. We've discussed on ZooChat before whether or not the zoological exhibits should be entertainment enough in themselves, and whether rope slides, toy boats and funfair-style attractions have any place, but I do think Bristol "feels" as though it suffers particularly in this regard because they've all been crammed into quite a small area.
 
individually i think many of the exhibits at bristol are very good, but the whole site i dont think has been planned well. In creating the seal and penguin coasts, for example, they demolished 2 okapi enclosures that were the same size as the single ones each okapi occupies now, and a large paddock used for storks/deer/wallaby, and the old polar bear bit which could have been used easily for a primate specie (it would have been a lot bigger than the ones they have in monkey jungle). And now the next phase of development is to try to 'create' a large enclosure each for the pygmy hippos and the bongos. And the barbary sheep/macaques are planned to make a return to the south area, in a ?new enclosure (which cant be large space wise looking at the master plan), which all through the eighties and early ninties lived together in a enclosure the same size that was turn into 'smarty plants' eventually.

My gripe with bristol, to be clear to those who maybe didnt understand why i found it 'appaling', is that it seems to lack any sense of strategic planning. Someone in a london zoo thread said that if your animal exhibit costs more than a school something has gone wrong somewhere and i think thats possibly true. Over 2 million was spent on the heart of zoo redevelopment which 10 years later is now a giant lorikeet walk through most places are errecting at a fraction of the cost, a small gorilla island a playgound (and a petting zoo demoloshed a few years later) and a retirement home for wendy. I know some will disagree, but bristol could have used so much of its historic infrastructure to display interesting animals at a fraction of the cost without costly redevelopment projects and put the cash towards the new zoo at hollywood tower, now unlikely to go ahead from what ive been told. If its serious about conservation and breeding endangered animals, they should have been more conservative with the cash at bristol and more proactive at hollywood, because lets be honest, theres only so much you can do with 12 acres. Youc an plough up every lawn and herbacceous border you like, the okapi enclosure in clifton would still be too small and the lions woild probably still pace (which they sadly still do).

Its great so many children/families are visiting. But when i was a child and none of these exhibits were built, it was still a busy place (and cheaper!). I dont think they needed to eat into the gardens/lawns and demolish so much to pull in crowds, and planning should have been longer term - save up for the creation of a new zoo at hollywood where theres more space for larger animals (okapi, hippos, bongo, lions etc) in need of a good, conservation effort.

A big play area and rope course aint gonna save the tiger and the pgymy hippos wont breed if theyre ina shoe box sized pen!
 
I agree with most of the posts that Bristol Zoo - now it has abandoned the keeping of large mammals for which it was unsuited - is a jolly fine zoo, one of the best for its size. But the zoo does have too many concessions for children. My views on children's play-areas within zoos is well-known. I can't stand them. The animals should be a big enough attraction on their own, but I'm well aware that such an attitude is perhaps unrealistic in this day and age. In an ideal world, childen's rides and other such nonsense would be found in theme parks and public parks, but not zoos.
 
zooman64 said:
I agree with most of the posts that Bristol Zoo - now it has abandoned the keeping of large mammals for which it was unsuited - is a jolly fine zoo, one of the best for its size. But the zoo does have too many concessions for children. My views on children's play-areas within zoos is well-known. I can't stand them. The animals should be a big enough attraction on their own, but I'm well aware that such an attitude is perhaps unrealistic in this day and age. In an ideal world, childen's rides and other such nonsense would be found in theme parks and public parks, but not zoos.
Click to expand...


The place that has got it right, IMO, is Woburn; a covered indoor play area, with separate areas for toddlers and bigger kids, and a coffee shop area at the back for adults. The big problem with the playgrounds in so many UK collections is that they are outdoor facilities, which means that they sit empty for 7-8 months a year because of the weather.

Look at Whipsnade's play area, in a collection having more space than nearly anywhere, on a day like today and you'll see exactly what I mean.

Going back to Bristol: I feel it's all rather marking time pending the development of Hollywood Towers. The latter has some hugely ambitious plans, but I can't help wondering if they wouldn't do better to open it on a more home-spun model, basically as Marwell was in 1972.

Effective planning at Clifton would surely be easier if the zoo's management knew exactly what was being done with their other site.
 
SMR said:
The zoo has a finite amount of space and to see so much of it occupied by empty lawns and a big lake while large bear species, hippopotami and elephants were crammed into tiny quarters was quite an eye-opener.

I do think Bristol "feels" as though it suffers particularly in this regard because they've all been crammed into quite a small area.
Click to expand...


Historically it was always thus- the cramped animal exhibits ranged around the edge. During the 1950's/60's era I got the distinct impression 'the gardens' were at least as important as the animals- the lawns and flower beds were absolutely sacrosanct and their layout prevented any extension/development of animal exhibits which have always been on the small side at Bristol.

Bristol does seem more like a children's playground than most other UK zoos nowadays, as you say, I think the reason is because the site is so small and a children's play area can't be seperate and less noticeable, as is possible in larger places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top