I'm not getting into an argument over this, 99% of people know what i was trying to point out, including you!!
Bristol Zoo (Closed) bristol zoo - appalling!
- Thread starter leiclad20
- Start date
I'm not getting into an argument over this, 99% of people know what i was trying to point out, including you!!
Johnny Morris.
Well-Known Member
Redstarsmith, i think £14.50 for 3.5 hours is pretty reasonable.
Not bad, and you could easily spend much longer, which would make it better value! I got there at opening time & probably spent 5 hours plus there on a day of heavy rain for much of it in 2009, although that included my daughter doing the rope trail i have to confess!
redstarsmith
Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter how much time you spend in a Zoo it is what you can see or experience that counts. I had driven 4 hrs from Liverpool to get there and I would have left 1hr 1/2 later but I didn't fancy another 3 to 4 hr drive back so soon. I have had similar drives to other Zoos around the the UK.
The Gorillas could not be seen due to improvements to the exhibit. As I have mentioned Aye Aye was a no show. The Lions... well most Zoos should get animatronic Lions because they do what Lions do- sleep (I have also had one roaring in my face at Chester, watched one pee onto a visitor and seen them mating at Belfast, Chester and Dudley so I do know what an experience Lions can be). The Pygmy Hippos have a poor enclosure. The penguin pool is looking unkempt. The wooden enclosures for the Racoons, Red Lemur etc is just plain lazy and look like something from the 1800's. The whole site is no bigger than a football stadium. The gardens are neglected. The signage around the Zoo is poor at best. An example of this is the Yellow Mongoose in the Nocturnal House. So many people thought they were Meerkats because the sign was off to the side in a very dark house!
Bristol Zoo has an animal collection that would appeal to a serious Zoophile and yet they are heavily leaning towards the family and children.
However, even if I had seen the Aye Aye or had a reasonable view of the Gorillas etc it is not value for money at £14.50. It should be worth £14.50 on a bad day not by chance if the wind is blowing in the right direction. Bristol is a small zoological gardens playground with an interesting collection of animals. It has some good, some reasonable and a few poor exhibits and is seriously pandering to children. If you placed the animals together would it fill more than a third of a very small Zoo? In fact it seemed smaller than the old Southport Zoo.
It's OK defending the Zoo but no one is explaining where the value for money is. No one seems to be taking on board some genuine opinions and comments from Leiclad or myself. In 2012 I expect more and demand far better. An excellent Zoo should be excellent for the animals and the visitor. As I have said if Bristol is doing so well it can afford to alienate people like myself then neither of us will lose out. I would have thought that Bristol Zoo would appreciative every penny that it can get. The Zoo sure looked like it was trying to squeeze every last penny out of the visitors when I went.
The Gorillas could not be seen due to improvements to the exhibit. As I have mentioned Aye Aye was a no show. The Lions... well most Zoos should get animatronic Lions because they do what Lions do- sleep (I have also had one roaring in my face at Chester, watched one pee onto a visitor and seen them mating at Belfast, Chester and Dudley so I do know what an experience Lions can be). The Pygmy Hippos have a poor enclosure. The penguin pool is looking unkempt. The wooden enclosures for the Racoons, Red Lemur etc is just plain lazy and look like something from the 1800's. The whole site is no bigger than a football stadium. The gardens are neglected. The signage around the Zoo is poor at best. An example of this is the Yellow Mongoose in the Nocturnal House. So many people thought they were Meerkats because the sign was off to the side in a very dark house!
Bristol Zoo has an animal collection that would appeal to a serious Zoophile and yet they are heavily leaning towards the family and children.
However, even if I had seen the Aye Aye or had a reasonable view of the Gorillas etc it is not value for money at £14.50. It should be worth £14.50 on a bad day not by chance if the wind is blowing in the right direction. Bristol is a small zoological gardens playground with an interesting collection of animals. It has some good, some reasonable and a few poor exhibits and is seriously pandering to children. If you placed the animals together would it fill more than a third of a very small Zoo? In fact it seemed smaller than the old Southport Zoo.
It's OK defending the Zoo but no one is explaining where the value for money is. No one seems to be taking on board some genuine opinions and comments from Leiclad or myself. In 2012 I expect more and demand far better. An excellent Zoo should be excellent for the animals and the visitor. As I have said if Bristol is doing so well it can afford to alienate people like myself then neither of us will lose out. I would have thought that Bristol Zoo would appreciative every penny that it can get. The Zoo sure looked like it was trying to squeeze every last penny out of the visitors when I went.
I'm a little time pressured to get into a long explanation/discussion tonight but would ask the question, do you know of any other UK zoo that offers a sizeable aquarium (not just a handful of small tanks) and pinnipeds any cheaper than Bristol does? These things are not cheap to establish and maintain (neither is housing great apes).
If I'm not mistaken, if you're referring to points originally raised on thread, then I'm sure people addressed/debated his comments/opinions when they were originally made.
redstarsmith
Well-Known Member
Shorts I'm happy to get in a debate when you have a more convenient time. I think that a lot of the comments on this board are just to totally defend Bristol Zoo like a mother would defend her baby if someone else called the baby ugly. It seems that I had a bad experience at Bristol Zoo by chance. Well I don't buy that. To be honest It wasn't a bad experience it was a disappointing one.
Could it be possible that Bristol Zoo has some problems? Unlike Leiclad I can't compare to what Bristol Zoo was but on its reputation and price. That a Zoo with such a reputation is selling out to the family dollars in such desperate ways suggests to me that there could be a lot of problems.
Leiclad mentioned that "the whole place is just a huge childrens playground with at £14 admission fee". Well I can't disagree with that. I had a very strong impression that Bristol Zoo was a Playground you can not miss ZooRopia from most areas of the Zoo.
"Many parts of the zoo, such as the herbaceous border and gardens near the guthrie road entrance have been cannabalised". I can't comment on what it was but I can tell you that it doesn't look great. It is dated and not kept to a good standard.
"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)".- I must admit that I though that gardens were of more or less an equal importance to playground and zoo.
"I even think the animals are starting to take a back seat role apart from those in the houses and notable crowd pullers - eg:" remove the houses and you lose half the exhibit area and 90% of the animals in the Zoo.
- "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 whole area looked terrible". Can anyone seriously say that a lot of these areas do look great?
"Its worth mentioning that some of the newer exhibits looked very unkempt - eg seal.penguin coasts needed a good clean." The penguin coast looked like it was (was) excellent. But you have to maintain it.
"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"- it wasn't particularly busy but it was hard to move around. Again I have been to Zoos were you have to queue throughout the day to see the next exhibit. "which we walked around in 2hrs" I have to agree with this.
Just defending Bristol Zoo and saying it is great doesn't make it great. I don't think that the Zoo is appalling but I think that are many things which are appalling about it. Value for money is one of those areas. I will assume that it doesn't have the food costs of other Zoos with much larger animals or the medical costs of looking after those larger animals. I don't see any new exhibits apart from the Meerkats (pandering to the children) and that isn't half as good as the one at Leeds Tropical World.
One of the great things about the Zoo is the Nocturnal House but even that has some serious problems that have been mentioned.
As for the Aquarium. I was impressed with the fish themselves but felt that that many of the tanks where quite shabby. So I wouldn't agree that that together with the Fur Seals justifies the admission price.
Any one of us could put a list of animals that is not found in another Zoo but I don't think that justifies an entry fee. The Zoo as a whole must justify the admission price not individual exhibits/animals. Although I could understand an increase in admission for a Giant Panda or Javan Rhino, a truly unique once in a lifetime animal.
Could it be possible that Bristol Zoo has some problems? Unlike Leiclad I can't compare to what Bristol Zoo was but on its reputation and price. That a Zoo with such a reputation is selling out to the family dollars in such desperate ways suggests to me that there could be a lot of problems.
Leiclad mentioned that "the whole place is just a huge childrens playground with at £14 admission fee". Well I can't disagree with that. I had a very strong impression that Bristol Zoo was a Playground you can not miss ZooRopia from most areas of the Zoo.
"Many parts of the zoo, such as the herbaceous border and gardens near the guthrie road entrance have been cannabalised". I can't comment on what it was but I can tell you that it doesn't look great. It is dated and not kept to a good standard.
"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)".- I must admit that I though that gardens were of more or less an equal importance to playground and zoo.
"I even think the animals are starting to take a back seat role apart from those in the houses and notable crowd pullers - eg:" remove the houses and you lose half the exhibit area and 90% of the animals in the Zoo.
- "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 whole area looked terrible". Can anyone seriously say that a lot of these areas do look great?
"Its worth mentioning that some of the newer exhibits looked very unkempt - eg seal.penguin coasts needed a good clean." The penguin coast looked like it was (was) excellent. But you have to maintain it.
"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"- it wasn't particularly busy but it was hard to move around. Again I have been to Zoos were you have to queue throughout the day to see the next exhibit. "which we walked around in 2hrs" I have to agree with this.
Just defending Bristol Zoo and saying it is great doesn't make it great. I don't think that the Zoo is appalling but I think that are many things which are appalling about it. Value for money is one of those areas. I will assume that it doesn't have the food costs of other Zoos with much larger animals or the medical costs of looking after those larger animals. I don't see any new exhibits apart from the Meerkats (pandering to the children) and that isn't half as good as the one at Leeds Tropical World.
One of the great things about the Zoo is the Nocturnal House but even that has some serious problems that have been mentioned.
As for the Aquarium. I was impressed with the fish themselves but felt that that many of the tanks where quite shabby. So I wouldn't agree that that together with the Fur Seals justifies the admission price.
Any one of us could put a list of animals that is not found in another Zoo but I don't think that justifies an entry fee. The Zoo as a whole must justify the admission price not individual exhibits/animals. Although I could understand an increase in admission for a Giant Panda or Javan Rhino, a truly unique once in a lifetime animal.
Last edited:
Despite your earlier aggression, i will say that you have made a few valid points, but i stand by my argument that value for money is not one of Bristol's biggest faults! I have been to plenty of worse collections charging more for less ! That may not make it right, but the market price is about right in my opinion.
I am not defending Bristol like an ugly baby's mother, as i have no particular loyalty to the zoo, it could definitely be better, although the size is very restrictive. Many would rate it as a top 5 (UK) zoo, i wouldn't go that far by any means, but it's definitely an above average collection charging an average entrance fee.
I am not defending Bristol like an ugly baby's mother, as i have no particular loyalty to the zoo, it could definitely be better, although the size is very restrictive. Many would rate it as a top 5 (UK) zoo, i wouldn't go that far by any means, but it's definitely an above average collection charging an average entrance fee.
The Bristol Zoo doesn't look appalling from across the pond. Quite the opposite, it looks like a model zoo for how to convert a small urban zoo that had megafauna in inadequate spaces into an attractive, conservation-oriented modern zoo. I first learned about this zoo because I was looking for something to watch on Netflix several months back and found the first season of "Skins" [should I admit this?] and some of the characters visited a very attractive zoo which I figured out was Bristol.
I like how they have a mix of superstar megafauna (gorillas, lions, seals, penguins), "supporting megafauna" standing in for larger species they don't have room for (pigmy hippos, okapis), and what appear to be some very attractive biodiversity exhibits (nocturnal house, aquarium). The closest analogy that I can think of for an American zoo that has undergone a similar transformation is the Central Park Zoo in New York City.
If I ever get to go on a UK zoo tour the Bristol Zoo will be at the top of the list along with Jersey, ZSL Whipsnade, and Chester.
I like how they have a mix of superstar megafauna (gorillas, lions, seals, penguins), "supporting megafauna" standing in for larger species they don't have room for (pigmy hippos, okapis), and what appear to be some very attractive biodiversity exhibits (nocturnal house, aquarium). The closest analogy that I can think of for an American zoo that has undergone a similar transformation is the Central Park Zoo in New York City.
If I ever get to go on a UK zoo tour the Bristol Zoo will be at the top of the list along with Jersey, ZSL Whipsnade, and Chester.
Last edited:
No David, you should not admit this!
As for this debate, I'm not prepared to defend Bristol because I'm not a regular visitor BUT (and it's a big but) I personally find no problem with the entry fee and tend to spend a good few hours there each time. Yes it's geared towards the family pound but it still has enough to keep us zoochatters interested!
That's all I'll say on the matter, not defending it for the hell of it but I'm not going to start slating it either as I personally love the place.
I visited Bristol Zoo for the first (and only) time less than 12 months ago and I loved it. So obviously I can't compare it to any past zoo experience but you make it sound like you can't see anything without having a playground in view. Bristol Zoo has one of the best insect houses I've ever seen (I'm not even an insect fan and I spent a great deal of time in here), a fantastic aquarium for such a small zoo, an incredible nocturnal house, and my favourite marine mammal and bird section in any zoo that I've ever seen.
I will admit that there are a lot of family based attractions but I think they've done a good job of containing them to mainly the centre of the zoo. All of the aforementioned exhibits can be seen without having to go near the playgrounds. And I don't feel like I can comment on cost because in Australia everything is more expensive and I think the entry price was more than reasonable. In Australia you would be looking at almost double that to get into Melbourne Aquarium, or in Bristol it is a similar price to go the the Bluereef Aquarium. I definitely didn't feel ripped off because you could see so much.
I will admit that there are a lot of family based attractions but I think they've done a good job of containing them to mainly the centre of the zoo. All of the aforementioned exhibits can be seen without having to go near the playgrounds. And I don't feel like I can comment on cost because in Australia everything is more expensive and I think the entry price was more than reasonable. In Australia you would be looking at almost double that to get into Melbourne Aquarium, or in Bristol it is a similar price to go the the Bluereef Aquarium. I definitely didn't feel ripped off because you could see so much.
redstarsmith
Well-Known Member
To state that someone has used aggression on a public forum is surely aggressive?
No, but it means a good number of people think it is great - and as 'greatness' is subjective that is arguably the same thing.
Unfortunately, the majority of your post reads that any of the things people like about Bristol are not valid, but all the things you didn't are very important. You're within your rights to not like the zoo or to be disappointed by it but please don't dismiss others' opinions as it only diminishes your own.
My own response to leiclad's original comments is on Page 2 of this thread and I don't have much to add. But saying of Bristol that 'if you take the house out there's very few animals' is like saying 'if you take the paddocks out Whipsnade has few animals' or 'there's nothing at Blackbrook if you take out the waterbirds'. The houses are the lifeblood of Bristol.
Of course (all zoos do if you look hard enough). Doesn't mean it's either 'appalling' in leiclad's words or 'shabby' in your own.
With regard to the price,it is slightly more expensive than noahs ark and Cotswold wildlife park, but at the latter 2 places you arguably see more for your money - a good nocturnal or reptile house does not justify a bigger admission fee,when both the other 2 have more big cats,primates and rhinos and giraffes etc etc. And both have good playgrounds too. And are much bigger. However,as others have noted bristol zoo can get verycrowded and I wonder if the admission price is used as a form of crowd control.
As I said in.my opening post, I have been a fairly regular visitor since I was born in the 80s. While I understand recent visitors would like the good houses and gorillas, I have seen bristol gradually reduce its animal collection and make bizarre changes to the layout and exhibits.
For example, the okapi used to live in a paddock the same size as their current one,in a wooded area of the zoo,next to a decent sized paddock with Wallace,cranes, storks and deer, with marmoset enclosures and a floral display opposite, and former bear enclosures bordering those. Now the bear enclosures were not fit for purpose but could hve been used for the gazelles still (as they always were since about 1990),a seating area or playground,avaries or for a small animal exhibit. The polar bear pit would have been a much larger space than any of the enclosures currently seen in monkey jungle. Yet the whole thing was deforested an flattened for seal and penguin coasts at enormous cost. The old seal pool, practically adjacent to the current hippo pen, was the filled and converted into small avaries and space for agouti and capybara . When you look at London zoos hippo pool and Marwells field size, it is unbelievable could not have thought how to incorporate this facility into the hippos space so tht they could actually swim! how bristol are allowed to keep hold of theirs in their current pen is beyond me.
I am delighted bristols gorilla group has been so successful,but of their exhibit will mean one of the largest enclosures in the zoo is given over to them aswell,fno of bigger animals u can see in the zoo. Even with expansion into the old elephant paddock,the group size will be limited to 11. Millions were spent doing all this work to bristol which saw the specie count drop and large play areas spring up. Now, the organisation laments it does nit have the funding for NWCP. More conservative redevelopment may have enabled partial construction of this new park that would have easily held a bigger gorilla,hippo and okapi enclosures.
Basically, it saddens me to see millions spent on 12 acres when after all that work, the monkeys still live in small cages, the gorilla group will be size restricted, and so much space was given over to children's play areas at the expense of gardens and lawns bristol used to famous for,and even at the expense of some animal exhibits. I'll upload old zoo maps so that people can see what I mean.
As I said in.my opening post, I have been a fairly regular visitor since I was born in the 80s. While I understand recent visitors would like the good houses and gorillas, I have seen bristol gradually reduce its animal collection and make bizarre changes to the layout and exhibits.
For example, the okapi used to live in a paddock the same size as their current one,in a wooded area of the zoo,next to a decent sized paddock with Wallace,cranes, storks and deer, with marmoset enclosures and a floral display opposite, and former bear enclosures bordering those. Now the bear enclosures were not fit for purpose but could hve been used for the gazelles still (as they always were since about 1990),a seating area or playground,avaries or for a small animal exhibit. The polar bear pit would have been a much larger space than any of the enclosures currently seen in monkey jungle. Yet the whole thing was deforested an flattened for seal and penguin coasts at enormous cost. The old seal pool, practically adjacent to the current hippo pen, was the filled and converted into small avaries and space for agouti and capybara . When you look at London zoos hippo pool and Marwells field size, it is unbelievable could not have thought how to incorporate this facility into the hippos space so tht they could actually swim! how bristol are allowed to keep hold of theirs in their current pen is beyond me.
I am delighted bristols gorilla group has been so successful,but of their exhibit will mean one of the largest enclosures in the zoo is given over to them aswell,fno of bigger animals u can see in the zoo. Even with expansion into the old elephant paddock,the group size will be limited to 11. Millions were spent doing all this work to bristol which saw the specie count drop and large play areas spring up. Now, the organisation laments it does nit have the funding for NWCP. More conservative redevelopment may have enabled partial construction of this new park that would have easily held a bigger gorilla,hippo and okapi enclosures.
Basically, it saddens me to see millions spent on 12 acres when after all that work, the monkeys still live in small cages, the gorilla group will be size restricted, and so much space was given over to children's play areas at the expense of gardens and lawns bristol used to famous for,and even at the expense of some animal exhibits. I'll upload old zoo maps so that people can see what I mean.
All depends. I have to say I find all this debate over entrance fees a bit bewildering. There's a variety, but it doesn't vary by that much in most cases. And, for the record, with optional donations removed from Bristol :
Bristol: £13.18
Cotswold: £13.00
Noah's: £9.50
So it is precisely 18p more expensive than Cotswold. It's nearly £4 more expensive than Noah's but really is a world apart in quality.
I suppose the question here is of priorities - which animals should the zoo have kept - and that's always going to be a matter of opinion. I'm personally very glad they built the extensive penguin/fur seal area - it's one of my favourite exhibits there (though I wish they still had multiple penguin species).
Re: a gorilla group limited to 11 - how many captive groups are bigger than that? I can't think of any of the top of my head but I'm far from being an expert.
Johnny Morris.
Well-Known Member
Johnny Morris.
Well-Known Member
Leiclad 20 Noahs Ark doesn't have anywhere near as many primates as Bristol.
Noahs Ark is £12.50.
You're right - I read the child price off by mistake!
Blimey.
That means it's:
Bristol: £13.18
Cotswold: £13.00
Noah's: £12.50
So there's less than a pound difference between the three. I know which one I would consider least worth the money*!
*clue - certainly not Bristol or Cotswold!
johnstoni.
Well-Known Member
I don't agree that the old okapi enclosure you mention was the same size as the current one. I wouldn't even describe it as a 'paddock'. I think Seal and Penguin Coasts are one of Bristol's most important exhibits. Sure, Living Coasts has improved on the model, and its unfortunate that Bristol was unable to sustain any of the more rarely-seen penguin species when Living Coasts (despite being on the 'English Riviera') has done well with Macaroni penguins, but I think the exhibit needed the space it took up and is still very impressive, especially the underwater viewing.
I agree that there is not an innovative approach with the hippos. It would take little to give them access to the lake, and I believe there are sufficient pocket of land around the edges to rotate some grazing for them.
I didn't rate the aviaries/gardens refurbishment in the corner of the zoo recently, I think a zoo with Bristol's profile need more remarkable aviaries than simply wood/wire constructions, and I think the meerkat development was a missed opportunity for something more interesting (eg aardvark/hyrax/mongoose with the meerkats). I also don't think barbary macaque/sheep exhibit will be a particularly good use of space, but then I'm very sold on ZSL's branding of London as a lush urban oasis (read: tropical species), and Whipsnade as an open park for large groups of large mammals.
Zona Brazil I felt was not a good use of space for commonly-seen species, but then if the tropical house is planned here I can see why there has been little development in certain parts of the zoo in the last few years.
Bristol overall feels to me like a collection that is definitely not spending a lot, but then we will all be happy to see the NCWP move forward.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
I have to throw my hat in to the "it's not perfect but it's certainly not appalling" ring. As has been said above, there are some real gems there, which, despite the encroachments of some of the play areas, make this a very good place.
I think the problem has been the focus on the gallimaufry of the National Wildlife Conservation Park - the doomed project to build a new zoo outside the city. There was something rather hubristic about the plan to build the thing, at a stated cost of £65-70 million; perhaps a wiser approach might have been to take it slowly, to develop piece-by-piece. Either way, the costs of the planning, and the extent to which the emphasis was placed on the NWCP, have undoubtedly meant that the zoo has taken a bit of a back seat over the past decade or so. The Seal and Penguin exhibit is fantastic, but I'd agree that it could do with more intense maintenance. The Monkey House feels a bit half-hearted. The new aviaries, and the meerkats, are very small-time. So, it's not perfect - but I can't think of a zoo where similar criticisms could not be levelled.
Some mitigation. Bryan Carroll has only been director at the zoo for a couple of years; he succeeded Jo Gipps, whose name is not universally revered (and under whose tenure there was little new of note completed at the zoo). The NWCP seems to have been kicked into the long grass now, so focus can be back on Clifton again. And the zoo does a huge amount outside its perimeter fence, research and conservation-wise.
I think the problem has been the focus on the gallimaufry of the National Wildlife Conservation Park - the doomed project to build a new zoo outside the city. There was something rather hubristic about the plan to build the thing, at a stated cost of £65-70 million; perhaps a wiser approach might have been to take it slowly, to develop piece-by-piece. Either way, the costs of the planning, and the extent to which the emphasis was placed on the NWCP, have undoubtedly meant that the zoo has taken a bit of a back seat over the past decade or so. The Seal and Penguin exhibit is fantastic, but I'd agree that it could do with more intense maintenance. The Monkey House feels a bit half-hearted. The new aviaries, and the meerkats, are very small-time. So, it's not perfect - but I can't think of a zoo where similar criticisms could not be levelled.
Some mitigation. Bryan Carroll has only been director at the zoo for a couple of years; he succeeded Jo Gipps, whose name is not universally revered (and under whose tenure there was little new of note completed at the zoo). The NWCP seems to have been kicked into the long grass now, so focus can be back on Clifton again. And the zoo does a huge amount outside its perimeter fence, research and conservation-wise.
For me the best thing about Bristol, and why it is flat out my favourite UK zoo, is the marriage of the conservation and family focuses. Where else does a zoo tailor so brilliantly to the family (the various interactive features of exhibits as well as the play areas etc) but also remains steadfastly committed to education and conservation??
I think some of the critics can find this marriage jarring, and yes its not perfect, but to me Bristol remains the best because they are currently the most successful at making conservation accessiblye.
I think some of the critics can find this marriage jarring, and yes its not perfect, but to me Bristol remains the best because they are currently the most successful at making conservation accessiblye.