Beat me to it. And the level of expectation is different - if you go to a National Park you're dealing with wild animals - some day you'll see loads of stuff, from geology to plants to insects to mammals. Some day the rocks'll be all that's apparent. You'll probably have a good day either way, if it's a decent park, but you can't rely on seeing wildlife.
But if you're going to a zoo, you expect to see animals. It's a zoo, for crying out loud!
Although, zoos may lose some of their audience by building naturalistic immersion habitats they can also potentially augment their audience by attracting people who traditionally wouldn't be as attracted to zoos. Institutions like Woodland Park Zoo can attract people who would normally prefer visiting botanical gardens, for example.
When Woodland Park Zoo switched to naturalistic enclosures some of their visitors were actually quite displeased. However, this was more than made up for by a stream of new visitors that hadn't previously been attracted to the zoo's presentations. Woodland Park Zoo now attracts more than 1.2 million visitors a year!
I am sure that animals attract more people than plants or landscape, rightly or wrongly.
Much as they can be irritating little so-and-so's, a zoo's major market are kids and families - and they will come to see animals.
The Internet never ceases to amaze me - someone who would go to a zoo with no animals?? Do you mean if it was branded as a botanical garden or a park? Surely if you paid your money to enter something called 'Woodland Park Zoo' you'd be unhappy to see no animals?
Actually, having thought about it I can envisage a scenario when I would enjoy visiting a zoo without animals - if it was a zoo museum kind of set up on an old zoo site. But they level of interest in the general tourist industry would, I suspect, be vanishingly small!
That does indeed scare me a bit, admittedly. I remember JerseyLotte saying how she found it odd that exhibit photos seemed to outnumber animal ones, and I have to agree with her. In fact, I imagine a lot of keepers that come here end up rather bemused: They work for animals, where they live is just where they live, and they'd probably rather talk about what they devote their life to over whether that shelter should be there. One thing I do notice is heart in what you're doing, and I have to admit, when I see page-long lists of zoos some members been to (hopefully not applicable to most of those!), I do wonder; do they just become ticklist additions rather than places to marvel at the natural world that humanity has tried to distance itself from? It's why I prefer the Aspinall Parks to big ones like Chester and London for example, because these feel like they're for the animals rather than ticking down animals in a manner of £££ exhibits.
Actually, having thought about it I can envisage a scenario when I would enjoy visiting a zoo without animals - if it was a zoo museum kind of set up on an old zoo site. But they level of interest in the general tourist industry would, I suspect, be vanishingly small!
I never thought of that but it is true. One of the most interesting zoo visits I went on was to Whitson zoo about 30 years after it closed. Certainly was interesting, couldn't imagine it getting popular in it's state though!
That does indeed scare me a bit, admittedly. I remember JerseyLotte saying how she found it odd that exhibit photos seemed to outnumber animal ones, and I have to agree with her.
In fact, I imagine a lot of keepers that come here end up rather bemused: They work for animals, where they live is just where they live, and they'd probably rather talk about what they devote their life to over whether that shelter should be there. One thing I do notice is heart in what you're doing, and I have to admit, when I see page-long lists of zoos some members been to (hopefully not applicable to most of those!), I do wonder; do they just become ticklist additions rather than places to marvel at the natural world that humanity has tried to distance itself from? It's why I prefer the Aspinall Parks to big ones like Chester and London for example, because these feel like they're for the animals rather than ticking down animals in a manner of £££ exhibits.
Interestingly, I get the reverse - I get a bit bemused by people who go to the same zoo over and over but show little interest in going to any others. Obviously, geography and mobility are an issue in some cases, but there do seem to be those who just aren't interested. Even more bemusing to me are the little 'cults' that grow up around particular individual animals - Rajang the Orang at Colchester is the most obvious case, but I've noticed a lot of love for Zambar the tiger these last few days. This is just not something that particularly interests me. Maybe my scientific background at uni has left me a little more detached. I've certainly never been one of the 'fluffy bunny' brigade - I generally don't name my pets either.
Everyone here probably goes to zoos for slightly different reasons - vive la difference!
I go to a lot of zoos because it combines two things I love: animals and travel. If it wasn't for zoos, I'd probably never have been to Krakow, to Berlin, to San Diego or to Antwerp. And I certainly wouldn't have seen Crab-eating Raccoons, Capuchinbirds or Barracuda - I don't have the time or money to travel far enough. And as a zoologist by education and a taxonomist by inclination, I like to see as many different animals as possible.
From those twin loves has come a fascination with zoos, which in turn has led to sitting in front of a computer debating a mock rock hyaena cave!
But one thing I can't understand is going to a zoo at which you're not going to see animals!
I think one of the great things about zoos is that you can find peronalities with certain animals: It reminds you they are unique living things that can process thought and not just chemicals in a test tube. Even the professionals can't deny that. Fair enough if people stick to their locals, if that's where their heart is. I too wish to travel, but to see the wild sights of the World: South Africa and Sumatra are high up there.
The average zoogoer definitely cares much more about seeing animals than exhibits, of that there is little doubt. However, the average ZooChatter cares TEN TIMES more about photos of exhibits rather than photos of animals. For proof of this just randomly click on any ZooChatter's photos, and the ones of enclosures are viewed far more often than the ones featuring animals. I've uploaded over 11,000 photos, and if I were to upload a photo of a red panda tomorrow a few people would take the time to closely examine the photo. If I uploaded a photo of the red panda's exhibit, there would be ten times the response. Red pandas are a dime a dozen but their enclosures are all unique. I gather that ZooChatters aren't like normal people.
