When I visited (and this was some years ago now) what set it apart from, say, Hamerton (to pick a similarly 'functional' and broadly topographically similar zoo) in terms of visit experience were two things.
One was just its all-pervading agricultural atmosphere - quite hard to sum up, but this is definitely a farm first and a zoo second. And it doesn't feel right somehow. Part of this manifests itself in the little finishes here and there, things that aren't in themselves a problem but taken as a whole are rather unsatisfactory. It's been a long time since my visit, but these recent photos do not convince me that this has changed.
The other is the ghastly anti-scientific 'educational' material. At least Hamerton or Exmoor are not emblazoned with signs declaring humans aren't related to apes and evolution is a myth and then receiving school visits. The prayers and suchlike I've nothing particular against (though the wording is hilariously over-sincere and rather comical) but some of the assertions on the 'information' signs really annoy me. The word 'zoo' derives from 'zoological (garden)' - and the zoology at this place is fundamentally undermined by their creationist stance.
The other factor against it for me (and I'm not going to pretend this is anything other than personal bias on my part) is that it is deliberately trying to poach visitors from (what I consider to be) the far superior zoo at Bristol. Not just by being there (which would be fair enough), but by the choice of slogans such as 'where the BIG animals are' clearly aiming at Bristol's perceived shortcomings. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Hamerton was actually one of the ones I was thinking of, because there has been discussion recently about the utilitarian nature of its enclosures for a brilliant collection. I'm not going to pretend I have first-hand knowledge of any UK zoo of course but while Noah's Ark has some unsatisfactory edges to the enclosures and may be much more like a farm than a zoo, is it actually a bad zoo (apart for the anti-evolution stance) or "a dump" as David phrased it? There seems to be a lot of hate for the place, and it seems to be largely fueled by its religious position. The enclosures themselves generally look perfectly serviceable for their inhabitants.
That sounds like an old Snowleopard quote! From photos in the gallery Noah's Ark seems like 90% of other British zoos, meaning that there are plenty of animals in very basic enclosures. The whole "prayer" fiasco is a bit over the top, and how on earth the establishment has been greenlit to host a herd of elephants is beyond my comprehension, but overall it seems interchangeable from many other U.K. zoos.
That sounds like an old Snowleopard quote! From photos in the gallery Noah's Ark seems like 90% of other British zoos, meaning that there are plenty of animals in very basic enclosures. The whole "prayer" fiasco is a bit over the top, and how on earth the establishment has been greenlit to host a herd of elephants is beyond my comprehension, but overall it seems interchangeable from many other U.K. zoos.
Actually to lump this place with 90% of collections in the UK is a bit un-fair,as the rest of those other 90%,haven't joined BIAZA and then been kicked out in under 3 years!!
The other factor against it for me (and I'm not going to pretend this is anything other than personal bias on my part) is that it is deliberately trying to poach visitors from (what I consider to be) the far superior zoo at Bristol.
The last time I went to Bristol (earlier this year), the taxi driver tried to convince me that Noah's Ark was a far superior zoo and to go there instead, so their marketing is working.
One was just its all-pervading agricultural atmosphere - quite hard to sum up, but this is definitely a farm first and a zoo second. And it doesn't feel right somehow.
It is still the same and I was left with exactly the same impression. Exotic species and enclosures dropped into what is still essentially a Farm- still a working farm maybe? I don't know.
Apart from the oddity of seeing Tigers, Giraffes, White Rhino etc in such a setting there were other weird things like the 'waterfowl collection' which consisted of domestic/random crossbred ducks and geese- not even pure breeds(!) with a couple of singleton cranes and storks thrown in plus a lot of chickens and guinea fowl. All adding to the 'farmyard' feel. I won't even start on the Religious dogma aspect!
I'm not sure I would term it a 'dump' though maybe not far removed- I have seen very small animal collections in the past which are more deserving of that term perhaps, but it is a very peculiar set-up.
Ouch on the 90% comment! Saucer of milk for table 1.
I'd like to see your maths on that! Putting 90% of British zoos on the same level of construction as Noah's? Really, no. Even with a generous appraisal of Noah's, to get anywhere near that you'd have to include every tiny falconry centre and glorified pets' corner - and once you do that I think you'll find most countries are the same.
