Chester Zoo Chester and the Disabled?

[Javan Rhino]

I don't know if everybody has seen this, since there are no mentions on the Chester Zoo website, but it was on the news that Chester have started to charge both disabled people and their carers to enter the zoo. I don't know what the policy was before, was it free carers? Anyhow, many people are disgusted, but my questioning is why?

I can see both sides to the arguement, but I am going to side with Chester (or at least lean that way), for the following reasons.

1) I cannot think of a single area of Chester that is not accessible. Every building has ramps instead of steps (and Realm of the Red Ape even has a lift) and motorised wheelchairs are available for hire. So, the point being that they are not paying for something they don't get.
2) At Chester, you pay to come onto the grounds and look at the animals. Both the disabled person and the carer are going to see some animals and enjoy the day. Yes, carers have to look after the disabled person but I'm sure that they both enjoy the day out all the same. If you are going to take that arguement, you might as well say parents pushing a buggy should be allowed in free because they are spending all their time looking after somebody.
3) The most important point is that Chester is a charity. It relies on admissions to feed and look after the animals and generally maintain the zoo. Can they afford to let anybody in for free?

However, I do think that maybe there should be a half-price/discount for carers or disabled people, just to keep it fair on both sides. I can't see though how they will experience the zoo any differently to fully-abled people. Where do you lie on this debate?

Also, somebody on the facebook page said it was disgusting the charged for over 3's, and said that it should be under 5's get in free. Is she right?

 

[Ned]

I’d be interested to know the legality of this policy. Certainly under the current law people with disabilities should receive the same service as everyone else. This means that they should pay the same price for the same experience, however, a disabled person employing a professional carer will have to pay for themselves and the carer. In effect the disabled person pays twice what anyone else pays. This is why carers normally go free. It maybe that Chester can get away with ripping off disabled people because strictly speaking they don’t run a service in the way that a train or bus company does.
Whatever the legality of it, for people who depend on others to take them to the zoo, who maybe needs help to go to the toilet or to eat or who haven’t got the mental capacity to look after themselves in a public place. For these people I feel life is unfair enough without having to pay double for everything.
Shame on Chester

 

[Cheetah fan]

I’d be interested to know the legality of this policy. Certainly under the current law people with disabilities should receive the same service as everyone else. This means that they should pay the same price for the same experience, however, a disabled person employing a professional carer will have to pay for themselves and the carer. In effect the disabled person pays twice what anyone else pays. This is why carers normally go free. It maybe that Chester can get away with ripping off disabled people because strictly speaking they don’t run a service in the way that a train or bus company does.
Whatever the legality of it, for people who depend on others to take them to the zoo, who maybe needs help to go to the toilet or to eat or who haven’t got the mental capacity to look after themselves in a public place. For these people I feel life is unfair enough without having to pay double for everything.
Shame on Chester

To be fair the women complaining most on the Facebook page classes her husband as a carer. To me Chester are fine to charge on this occasion but I guess where do you draw the line? Its either all or nothing and Chester have gone for nothing now. And in the end its more money to help keep the animals in there superb conditions.

 

[Twiglet2010]

I work with disabled kids but see it from both sides of the argument. In one respect people with some kinds of disability (severe Autism, blindness, deafness etc) do not access places like zoos the same was as neurotypical people BUT many disabled people (members of the deaf and/or blind community for example) do not even like being classed as "disabled" or "less able" than everyone else...so for that reason I don't think it should be different. I'm taking a child with Down Syndrome to Colchester tomorrow and I'll be paying full child price for her to get in purely because she'll have someone (me) with her who can help her access the zoo fully and be able to take in everything she sees/feels/hears. I'll also be doing it because I don't feel that she's any different to anyone else.

I think carers should have discounted rates because of the work they do. If they are with a disabled person, regardless of age, they will probably (I speak from experience) be spending the majority of their day trying not to lose the person they are caring for, seeing to any medical and health needs, seeing to personal care needs etc etc etc

I suppose it all depends on whether or not you see the disability first, or the person. I personally see the person first but that may be because I've pretty much always worked with children/young people with varying forms of disability or SEN

 

[Maguari]

Whatever the legality of it, for people who depend on others to take them to the zoo, who maybe needs help to go to the toilet or to eat or who haven’t got the mental capacity to look after themselves in a public place. For these people I feel life is unfair enough without having to pay double for everything.

[DEVIL'S ADVOCATE]

The carer on the other hand gets free entry to Chester Zoo - they are using and enjoying the facilities for free that others are paying for access to.

[/DEVIL'S ADVOCATE]



You can argue this either way.

 

[Paix]

I work with disabled kids but see it from both sides of the argument. In one respect people with some kinds of disability (severe Autism, blindness, deafness etc) do not access places like zoos the same was as neurotypical people BUT many disabled people (members of the deaf and/or blind community for example) do not even like being classed as "disabled" or "less able" than everyone else...so for that reason I don't think it should be different. I'm taking a child with Down Syndrome to Colchester tomorrow and I'll be paying full child price for her to get in purely because she'll have someone (me) with her who can help her access the zoo fully and be able to take in everything she sees/feels/hears. I'll also be doing it because I don't feel that she's any different to anyone else.

Exactly, most people who are disabled do not like to be seen as less able, I know this from experience with family. So from my point of view, if the whole zoo is disabled friendly, I see no reason why the entrance fee should be less/cheaper.

 

[Ned]

I feel the point I was making has been missed, maybe not explained very well, let me try again. I think people with disabilities should be treated the same as those without, therefore they should pay the same to get in as everyone else. If they also have to pay for a carer to get in they are paying twice. This is discriminating against them as it cost them twice as much to get into a zoo as it does a person who can access the zoo without help.
If we were to follow the logic that making concessions for those with disabilities is in some way offensive, then we’d never build wheelchair ramps to aid access for wheelchair users. In the same way, some people need human assistance in order to do things; the carer is there to aid in the same way a wheelchair is.
I don’t get twiglet2010’s comment about deaf people; I wouldn’t have thought a person who was deaf would need a carer to go out and about. I think maybe there is some confusion between those who have a physical impairment that doesn’t automatically prevent them from living an equal life to everyone else and those who are dependent on others in order to live.
As for comments about the carer getting a free day out, they are doing a job (should the zoo keepers also pay because they get to go to the zoo every day?) it’s a very naive comment.

 

[catinthehat]

I'm not sure that Chester are right in charging for a carer for a disabled adult who is essential to allow a disabled person to access the zoo, i.e. they need them to push a wheelchair/help feed/toilet etc.

But you could argue that they are within rights to ask a carer of a disabled child to pay because a non-disabled child has to be accompanied by an adult to be allowed into the zoo, so it could be said that a family of an able bodied child is being discriminated against by having to pay more.

 

[Twiglet2010]

I've worked with deaf people, granted they were children, but I know that some deaf people need a carer when they are out in the community to help them communicate, cross roads etc.

Whose comment are you saying is naive Ned?

 

[jbnbsn99]

For some reason I am finding this debate fascinating. Let be approach this subject from the zoo's point of view. I've worked in guest services in a zoo for 2 years now, albeit not in the UK.

While the carer is there to perform a job/service for which they are getting paid for, they along with the person they are caring for have made a conscious choice to visit the zoo. Both we have to assume will be enjoying their day out at the zoo (even if one of the two is caring for another one). Why is this any different from a parent who brings their children to the zoo? The children after all need a carer (i.e. parent, teacher, nanny, etc). At most, if not all US zoos, the children receive a discounted rate (at my own zoo it is 3 dollars less than the adult price). I see no difference in doing the same for a handicapped person and their carer. The carer would pay full price and the handicapped person would be discounted. There is no logical reason in the zoo's point of view to let either one of them in for free. If they are both enjoying the zoo then logically both should have to pay. An amusement park or a sporting event would do it any other way.

I worked in ticketing for a professional baseball team for several years and here is how it worked there. There was a special row of seats in most sections of the ballpark specifically for wheelchairs. This was the only row of the section that did not have to be accessed by stairs. In each row there were a few spots for wheel chairs the rest of the seats were designated as for attendees. Everyone including the person in the wheelchair and the attendee paid the same price. Should a zoo be any different?

I do expect messages called me cold-hearted, but that is how it works in the business world. Sorry.

 

[Ned]

I've worked with deaf people, granted they were children, but I know that some deaf people need a carer when they are out in the community to help them communicate, cross roads etc.

Whose comment are you saying is naive Ned?

Maguari's comment.
As for deaf people, I have no knowledge about deafness and the needs of people with impaired hearing. I did have a maths teacher at school who was completely deaf and completely independent. I know his situation can’t be used to form a generalised opinion about all people who are deaf but it suggests to me that merely having a lack of hearing doesn’t, in its self, prevent someone being independent.
Also, I agree with the catinthehat guy.

 

[Maguari]

As for comments about the carer getting a free day out, they are doing a job (should the zoo keepers also pay because they get to go to the zoo every day?) it’s a very naive comment.

I take your point, but the zoo keepers work at the zoo. There's nowhere else they can do their job, so that's not really a fair comparison. Schoolteachers on school visits have to pay (or at least their employer does), and that's a far more comparable case to carers. Professional carers are not forced to go to the zoo - there's any number of free places they could go for a day out. And a lot of carers will be treating it as a day out (particularly if they're caring for a family member), even if a 'working' one. I'm sure you'd agree that they'll be looking at the animals etc almost as much as the disabled visitor will.


The reason a disabled person and carer are being asked to pay twice is that two people are coming into the zoo. Simple as that.


I'm not taking sides in this at all, but just making the point that this can be argued both ways. I tend to view it as a generous offer they can no longer afford to maintain, rather than as a right that they are now denying people.

 

[Maguari]

While the carer is there to perform a job/service for which they are getting paid for, they along with the person they are caring for have made a conscious choice to visit the zoo. Both we have to assume will be enjoying their day out at the zoo (even if one of the two is caring for another one). Why is this any different from a parent who brings their children to the zoo? The children after all need a carer (i.e. parent, teacher, nanny, etc). At most, if not all US zoos, the children receive a discounted rate (at my own zoo it is 3 dollars less than the adult price). I see no difference in doing the same for a handicapped person and their carer. The carer would pay full price and the handicapped person would be discounted. There is no logical reason in the zoo's point of view to let either one of them in for free. If they are both enjoying the zoo then logically both should have to pay. An amusement park or a sporting event would do it any other way.

Absolutely, jb. That's how I would run it, too.

 

[Twiglet2010]

Although many of the deaf community live completely independent lives, some people require assistance due to the nature of their disability. There are varying degrees of deafness; some totally deaf people may also have other additional requirements (depending on the cause of their deafness for example) so it all depends on the individual.
I agree that in theory not being able to hear should not prevent someone from being independent but in some cases it does.
I agree with catinthehat's comments about parents/carers with disabled kids, which is why I'm not getting the child I'm taking to the zoo tomorrow in as a consession as she's only 8 so will need adult supervision regardless of her condition, plus I have a gold card so have already paid for myself to get in anyway. The child I'm taking tomorrow will be getting as much, if not more, out of the day than any other child visiting and the fact that she has Down Syndrome becomes irrelevant in that particular situation

 

[Ned]

For some reason I am finding this debate fascinating. Let be approach this subject from the zoo's point of view. I've worked in guest services in a zoo for 2 years now, albeit not in the UK.

While the carer is there to perform a job/service for which they are getting paid for, they along with the person they are caring for have made a conscious choice to visit the zoo. Both we have to assume will be enjoying their day out at the zoo (even if one of the two is caring for another one). Why is this any different from a parent who brings their children to the zoo? The children after all need a carer (i.e. parent, teacher, nanny, etc). At most, if not all US zoos, the children receive a discounted rate (at my own zoo it is 3 dollars less than the adult price). I see no difference in doing the same for a handicapped person and their carer. The carer would pay full price and the handicapped person would be discounted. There is no logical reason in the zoo's point of view to let either one of them in for free. If they are both enjoying the zoo then logically both should have to pay. An amusement park or a sporting event would do it any other way.

I worked in ticketing for a professional baseball team for several years and here is how it worked there. There was a special row of seats in most sections of the ballpark specifically for wheelchairs. This was the only row of the section that did not have to be accessed by stairs. In each row there were a few spots for wheel chairs the rest of the seats were designated as for attendees. Everyone including the person in the wheelchair and the attendee paid the same price. Should a zoo be any different?

I do expect messages called me cold-hearted, but that is how it works in the business world. Sorry.

they don't necessarily agree to go to the zoo together. It’s more a case of the person with a disability deciding to go to the zoo, they can’t access the zoo alone and so a carer to takes them zoo. The carer might hate zoos, be opposed to zoos or love zoos. Either way, they have to go to the zoo because that’s their job.
Adults with disabilities should pay full price because they are adults and should be treated as such but if the zoo want to charge the carer, the person with the disability is expected to reimburse the carer (if the carer is a professional rather than a friend).

 

[jbnbsn99]

@Ned, as you said it should be an arrangement worked out by the carer and the person being cared for. The zoo in reality should have no part in it.

 

[Ned]

That's not what I said. I said the person with the disability decides where to go. The carer should have no part in the decision. A carer can’t turn up to support someone and say “You know what, I don’t fancy the zoo. Let’s go to Legoland” The carer is an employee of the person who needs the support.

 

[jbnbsn99]

What I was referring to was your last line.

the person with the disability is expected to reimburse the carer (if the carer is a professional rather than a friend).

 

[Ned]

What I was referring to was your last line.

Ok, but the zoo doesn't charge wheelchair users to build ramps, so why should they charge extra if a person needs a different kind of support to access the zoo?

 

[Maguari]

That's not what I said. I said the person with the disability decides where to go. The carer should have no part in the decision. A carer can’t turn up to support someone and say “You know what, I don’t fancy the zoo. Let’s go to Legoland” The carer is an employee of the person who needs the support.

But it's a direct analogue of the situation with children. Children can only go if an adult goes. The adult may not want to go, but goes becuase the child wants to, so the adult has to.

In fact, a parent taking a child is a carer, to all intents and purposes.

I was taken to many zoos as child becuase I kicked up a stink about wanting to go. Me wanting to go meant a family of four had to go. Would they not have to pay because only one of us wanted to go to the zoo that day?



It's nice if they offer a discount for disabled visitors or their carers, but it's entirely at the zoos' discretion, as far as I can see.