I'd be very interested in hearing any feedback or discussion any other Zoochatters have of my overall review of Zoo Berlin posted above, incidentally; do you agree with me? Do you think I was too lenient? Do you think I'm completely and utterly wrong? If any of these, why?
Basically, if anyone has something to contribute to the topic, feel free
I just got back from a long weekend in Berlin, where I visited the Zoo, Tierpark and Aquarium on three separate days. I thought I might have a crack at this, especially as this is one of my favourite threads. It's also likely that without reading this I wouldn't have gone to Berlin this year, so a big thank you for that!
For context I have visited most of the UK's 'Big' zoos, plus Melbourne and Copenhagen. Lots of smaller collections as well, but they don't really inform my opinions here. I would put my top five before this weekend as follows: Melbourne, Chester, Copenhagen, Colchester, Edinburgh. Perhaps that may be helpful in understanding what I am comparing Berlin to.
I'll jump straight to my conclusion, addressed to TLD: your reviews are mostly on point but I think that your enjoyment of the collections has overly softened your criticisms of the negatives.
The breadth of the collection, especially when taken across both sites (7 bear species!) is stunning, and is the obvious draw of the zoos. Even though I don't know enough about animals in captivity to really appreciate a lot of the rarities I was still blown away by the commitment to representing variation within taxonomic groups. I certainly haven't experienced anything like it. Whether it's seeing five Red Deer subspecies (or at least various subspecies of Red Deer and Wapiti) side by side or seeing two of the very few Ganges Gharial in Europe, Berlin offers a very different zoo experience to any other collection I have visited.
The question though, is whether that's a good thing. It's obviously fun for zoonerds, and there is a clear educational value for everyone in being able to see unusual species and come to understand that the world is much larger and more varied than they previously thought. But I find it very hard to accept that one could visit the Berlin collections, bar the Aquarium, and leave without any real understanding of conservation issues, or the conservation status of the animals you have seen. I get that that's not Berlin's 'thing' but there is missed opportunity and then there is negligence of opportunity and I think Berlin falls into the latter in my book.
I will touch on enclosures a little further down, but for the flow of my argument here I will just state that I think, unlike TLD, that the emphasis on variety
has led to undersized exhibits and perhaps to exhibits that fail their inhabitants in other welfare capacities, due to wanting to ensure that animals are 'on show'.
Furthermore, and here lies the real thrust of the negative side of my comments, I think the whole philosophy of a zoo being a sort of textbook for people to learn about animals creates a physical and mental environment where humans' needs are placed above those of the animals, and reinforces the dangerous idea that an animal is on the Earth to be exploited by humanity. In contrast, most zoos feel more like a home for animals where humans are ushered in as respectful guests to learn how they can help protect these species both in captivity and in the wild. Perhaps I am over-romanticising this argument, but to support my views I saw behavior by children in the presence of their teachers that I have never seen elsewhere. Things like poking penguins or crossing standoff barriers to get closer to tiger cubs. I cite these not just because they show a lack of consideration to the animals involved but also a lack of understanding that animals can be dangerous and unpredictable.
This displaying mentality is most obvious in the Houses, where rows of windows side by side show different species. Sometimes, like the primate houses in both collections, I think this has been done whilst maintaining acceptable and sometimes good quality enclosures, but I still find it fundamentally unengaging as a way of presenting animals. It doesn't encourage people to linger on an exhibit, and even as an enthusiast I found myself getting 'species burnout'. Obviously, as with both carnivore houses, it can also lead to some devastating enclosure quality consequences. I think TLD was mostly right with his praise of certain enclosures here , and too lenient in his criticism of the substandard ones, but I will just clarify a point below that I didn't previously understand despite having read this thread several times.
[I've actually moved this section to a separate post below as I felt I had derailed my own argument with it.]
There are of course good enclosures, and great ones. The Vulture aviary, the Seashore Aviary, the Brown Bear exhibit, virtually all the Tierpark paddocks, the California Sea Lions to name but some. A lot of the Zoo's might be nearer acceptable than good, but they make up for that by being iconic for historic and aesthetic reasons. The Antelope House is to memory the most beautiful inanimate thing I have seen in a zoo.
As a last paragraph I would note that the Aquarium feels far more modern and most of my criticisms do not apply to it. I think if the collections are brought in line with the style and approach shown there that would be a good thing.
So those were my thoughts. I know I've come across as very down on the collections, but that is partly to offer a counterpoint to the thoughts of TLD which I have attempted to make this post a response to. I hope no offense is taken where I have specifically highlighted points where I think he is wrong, perhaps they will spark some discussion! It would have been less interesting had I just listed the bits I agree with him on I think. I did really enjoy my visits to both the Zoo and the Tierpark.
In closing I would say that the Zoo is absolutely one of the greats of Europe, though I suspect that as I visit more zoos on the continent it will fall further and further down my list. For now I'd put it behind Copenhagen. I think the stain of the Alfred Brehm House prevents me from considering the Tierpark to be good full stop. Even if this were not the case I would find it to be like Whipsnade, a great wildlife park that is just too 'large mammal heavy' to truly feel like a great zoo.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on my discussion of Gondwanaland incidentally - along with any up-to-date information you may have which has bearing on my opinions!
