Chester Zoo Chester - changes & demolition

Although it is my favourite zoo, I haven't been for a while as my family do not share the same intrest in animals as me and I am not old enough to drive. I am shocked at what has been said about the zoo.
Currently, how many animals are off show and what exhibits are being redone?
 
Andii, as more of the zoo changes and more people become aware of those changes as we move into spring and summer, I can see this becoming quite an emotive subject.

The zoo is a commercial enterprise that costs a lot of money to run so they have to be careful with their pennies, but in the last year a number of cost-cutting measures have been made that directly impact the visitor experience, simple things like the introduction of disposable plates, all the way to more important changes such as the removal of all the flowers, which will have a negative impact on many levels (promotions, marketing etc). There are now a number of new staff whose role it is to shift the organisation away from break-even (or thereabouts) and more into profit, and they're the ones who have been pushing for greater commercialism. This is understandable given the recent economic climate and the commitment to major construction works, but it does seem to be leaving some long-standing members with a bad taste in their mouths.

I personally have always found the zoo's staff to be extremely polite and helpful, but in the last year or so I've also found that they share many of the same frustrations we do. Often keepers aren't informed or involved in decisions and don't have any more information about the zoo's direction than its visitors. Keepers love their animals and hate to see them leave, gardeners hate to see their flower beds turned into lawns and restaurant managers hate to see their service decline, but they're not the ones making the decisions. Admittedly I have also been to members' day talks where the keeper hasn't shown up, but I'll mention no names...

One of the biggest issues seems to be the lack of disclosure. It's unfair to expect the zoo to tell us everything that's going on, especially with regards to sensitive animal arrivals, but they really do need to include visitors - and especially members - more in their ongoing ground-level projects. I really can't see any harm telling visitors why, for example, the aviaries were removed, or why the coati and otter enclosures were grassed over, or what's going to happen to the area around the children's zoo, especially if the plans all turn out to be positive. I think more disclosure would go a long way to appease those who aren't necessarily comfortable with so many ongoing changes, especially as members such as yourself have decided not to renew as a result.
 
Well if members are that upset why at the AGM every year why do you only get about 50 or 60 members turn up to have a say in how the zoo is run,I think this shows the vast majority of members are only bothered my the fact that they can get in free to the zoo once they have paid there membership fees.
 
zoogiraffe said:
Well if members are that upset why at the AGM every year why do you only get about 50 or 60 members turn up to have a say in how the zoo is run.
Click to expand...
I've always wondered why the AGM isn't better attended, the turnout is woeful given the total number of members, even taking into account those who must live locally. I've never got the impression that members had much say in the daily running of the zoo though, other than to elect board members.
 
SMR said:
I've always wondered why the AGM isn't better attended, the turnout is woeful given the total number of members, even taking into account those who must live locally. I've never got the impression that members had much say in the daily running of the zoo though, other than to elect board members.
Click to expand...
I rest my case!!!!!!!
 
What I meant was that members didn't get much say, not that they didn't have much to say. ;)

Do you know if the zoo has ever tried sending questionnaires out with the members' magazine? I can't remember one other than the board voting form.
 
SMR said:
The zoo is a commercial enterprise . . . . There are now a number of new staff whose role it is to shift the organisation away from break-even (or thereabouts) and more into profit, and they're the ones who have been pushing for greater commercialism. This is understandable given the recent economic climate and the commitment to major construction works, but it does seem to be leaving some long-standing members with a bad taste in their mouths.
Click to expand...

Correction: Chester Zoo is a charity, not a commercial enterprise. It is expected to break even, otherwise it would be investigated by the Charities Commission. Of course they may well need to make a surplus in the short term to pay for the new projects which are now under development.
The Zoo also has to meet the terms of the Zoo Licensing Act, which means that the management have to review environmental impacts and move towards a more sustainable way of running the Zoo. I think that some of the recent changes are intended to make progress in this direction (for example in the gardening style).
While I am concerned about some of the recent changes, I hope for early announcements of projects which will redevelop some of the older parts of the Zoo.

Alan
 
Alan, you're quite right, my words were not chosen wisely, my intent was simply to indicate that the zoo is operating within strict financial margins.

The zoo isn't wholly run as a charity however, Chester Zoo Enterprises (all retail outlets, catering etc) operates as a subsidiary company and although it transfers all profits to the society via gift aid, it acts as a limited company, hence the desire to increase its profit margin.
 
As a member that is more or less happy with the direction the zoo is going in,I can understand why some of you are getting upset about the formal flower beds going but at the same time you have to realise that it was also a relic of a bygone era of zoo`s,in fact I`m surprised its taken them this long to do it,as for the other area`s that have gone recently all would also say that they were from that same bygone era,and need to go which to me only leaves 3 more area`s that need to be removed,to have got rid of all the worst parts of that era from the zoo,although some of them could be modified and brought up to a presentable standard for the 21 century.
 
zoogiraffe said:
which to me only leaves 3 more area`s that need to be removed,to have got rid of all the worst parts of that era from the zoo,although some of them could be modified and brought up to a presentable standard for the 21 century.
Click to expand...

Which 3 areas are they?
 
Kangaroo`s,Cattle House and well I`ll let you think about that but its changed very little from the day it was first built!!
 
zoogiraffe said:
As a member that is more or less happy with the direction the zoo is going in,I can understand why some of you are getting upset about the formal flower beds going but at the same time you have to realise that it was also a relic of a bygone era of zoo`s,in fact I`m surprised its taken them this long to do it,as for the other area`s that have gone recently all would also say that they were from that same bygone era,and need to go which to me only leaves 3 more area`s that need to be removed,to have got rid of all the worst parts of that era from the zoo,although some of them could be modified and brought up to a presentable standard for the 21 century.
Click to expand...

I don't think the flower beds were, also I wouldn't be so upset at the loss of the flower beds if they were putting something in that would give the wow factor, instead they turfed it over and planted some trees?

I can understand that this area may form part of an enclosure, thus the planting of trees to give them time to grow but to loss the flower beds for something that may or may not happen for a few years is a very sad loss to someone who visited Chester not only for the animals.
 
Off track slightly, i was wondering you regular Chester visitors, regarding your opinion on the new babirusa/otter enclosure at ROTRA, has it bedded in well?, there seems to be plenty of cover for the animals, are the otters using the pool?, is the terrain holding up, with the babirusa rooting around?
And as simply an animal exhibit, how does it look to you, does it stand up against previous new builds.
 
zoogiraffe said:
...I can understand why some of you are getting upset about the formal flower beds going but at the same time you have to realise that it was also a relic of a bygone era of zoo`s...
Click to expand...

We probably shouldn't focus the thread on one particular area, but that really isn't true. Flowers aren't relics in the same way as bear pits and iron bars are and they don't have to be stuffy and formal. Chester's weren't, they were modern and vibrant. What's more, their presence was growing in significance as the average age of visitors increases. They have a huge, positive impact on mood and perception, which is why there are now countless urban and country flower schemes, festivals and shows. Chester has dispensed with one of its major attractions, just at a time when everyone else is starting to embrace flowers and gardens and recognise their importance.

taun said:
I don't think the flower beds were, also I wouldn't be so upset at the loss of the flower beds if they were putting something in that would give the wow factor, instead they turfed it over and planted some trees?
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's a zoo and ultimately we want the best possible enclosures for the animals, so if these areas were used for larger living spaces or more species I think everyone would find that acceptable. I personally loved the flowers, but I also recognise that they're an important attraction at Chester to many people who, as Taun so rightly says, didn't just visit for the animals. I worry about the long term impact that will have.
 
SMR said:
We probably shouldn't focus the thread on one particular area, but that really isn't true. Flowers aren't relics in the same way as bear pits and iron bars are and they don't have to be stuffy and formal. Chester's weren't, they were modern and vibrant. What's more, their presence was growing in significance as the average age of visitors increases. They have a huge, positive impact on mood and perception, which is why there are now countless urban and country flower schemes, festivals and shows. Chester has dispensed with one of its major attractions, just at a time when everyone else is starting to embrace flowers and gardens and recognise their importance.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I disagree with this. I have no problem with gardens like glorious grasses, as that does what a modern zoo should aim to do by presenting wildlife in a natural setting and immersing visitors within it. However, rows of colourful flower beds, in my opinion, give the impression of man as in control of nature, detract from any nearby exhibits trying to create a sense of "wildness" and say nothing about where the plants came from or their place in an eco-system. If there was an animal exhibit built on these principles, I would imagine that most members on here would see it as a great disapointment and huge step backwards for an otherwise very progressive zoo so I don't see why it should be any different for plants.

This is not to mention the cost involved in maintaining the flowers and the amount of water that they need which is rather hypocritical considering the zoo is owned by a charity dedicated to preserving wildlife.
 
redpanda said:
If that was directed at me, then no I don't but can imagine they were quite costly.
Click to expand...
No it wasn`t but just so people know just the plants in the beds cost the zoo between 40-50 thousand a year,I`m sorry but in this day and age thats money that can be better spent!
 
redpanda said:
However, rows of colourful flower beds, in my opinion, give the impression of man as in control of nature, detract from any nearby exhibits trying to create a sense of "wildness" and say nothing about where the plants came from or their place in an eco-system.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't have to be this way. In the wild, including in the British countryside, there are huge displays of completely natural flowering plants. Beds similar to those at Chester could be created as an exhibit, one that highlighted naturally occurring spectacles of a similar type. I don't suppose you visited Ness Botanical Gardens in 2008? They had vast areas of British wild flower meadows that rivalled Chester's formal beds in every way. They cost nothing to up-keep, weren't watered and proved to be an excellent educational, conservation feature, something that acres of lawn are not.

The idea that flowers have to be formal and structured demonstrates a lack of horticultural understanding and a lack of imagination.

And since you mentioned water conservation, do you know how much rainwater the zoo saves every year?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top