La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
Can a "zoo" be entirely indoors?
Difference between traditional zoos vs aquariums, butterfly houses, botanic gardens, safari parks, e
- Thread starter La Cucaracha
- Start date
Yes - DWA comes to mind. Sure they don't have a lot of the standard species, but there's a good handful of larger mammals, birds, and reptiles.
iloveyourzoos
Well-Known Member
What is philosophically common among all these facilities is that they present the relations and representations (and misrelations/misrepresentations) of humans (or a subset thereof) to the natural world. Often under the guise of claiming to do the opposite: ie. claiming to present the relations and representations of the natural world to humans! As such, the differences between the subgroups are best understood not as intrinsic questions, but rather as questions of politics and power (in the broadest philosophical sense of being the social production of an effect that determines the capacities, actions, beliefs, or conduct of actors).
Such politics and power applies both to dynamics that most of us might consider outdated and inappropriate and bad, and to those that we consider modern and essential and good. But whether it's royal supremacy and imperialist ambition, or scientific discovery and conservation action, the names we use are about the story that the institution is trying to tell (which may include the story it was trying to tell at the time it was named, or the re-telling that they're trying to pull off, once we understand that marketing is just another lever of political power broadly defined).
So why are aquariums and aviaries sometimes treated as distinct from zoos? Because humans are predominantly terrestrial beings, and so the presentation of aquatic and flying life signals a mastery of another plane of existence. Their distinctiveness is as much (or more) about the marvels of engineering required to present them to us land dwellers, as it is about the species kept. It is saying look how far we humans have come. (Which is perhaps why aquariums are even more numerous than aviaries, since birds we can at least see from the ground, while most humans don't get underwater views very often).
Indeed, why are zoos and gardens and natural history museums often separate from fine art or technology or other history museums? It's about our perceptions of the roles that humans had in each field.
Similarly, zoos versus safari parks versus nature centers are about signaling perceptions of human effort: In zoos the idea is that they have brought the animals to you. In safari parks the idea is that you go out to see the animals (on safari!). In local nature centers the idea is that we find the animals among us where we already are. As a political/power dynamic these stories still apply even if the zoo is only housing animals that are already local, or the safari park is showing animals that were never here to begin with, or the nature center has collected and curated the animals heavily.
Zoos vs. botanical gardens are also about power and politics, with the common (mis)perception that parts of the natural world which move are a greater potential danger than parts that don't.
And what about petting zoos and touch tanks? Zoochatters who skip these sections may be missing the main premise of all the stories: A relationship with the natural world so thorough that even your kids have power!
To me, this approach also helps to explain why there are so many overlaps and discrepancies between the names of different institutions, or why some institutions raise "and gardens" or "and aquarium" into their names while others don't. Questions of politics and power (and marketing and history) broadly defined are seldom simple, one-dimensional, or unidirectional.
I mostly agree with this, except with the slight caveat that I think politics and PR broadly defined are themselves essential elements or reflections of identity and mission.
They can still have variety? Even for aquatic species you got inverts, fishes, herps etc., and inside each taxonomic group each species can and will occupy a variety of niches. Saying aquarium and other facilities dont have variety is just incorrect?
Or maybe, zoo is the umbrella term for all facilities. That's why a lot of us include these facilities when saying "zoos". People who say e.g they have visit 100 zoos often do and will include other type of facilities on the same list.
You are basically asking for a clarification on separate nomers on a continuum. For a clear zoo, butterfly park or aquarium you could come up with a workable definition (which is something different then the one and final answer, which does not exist). But there are lots of intergrades for which you will never find an agreeable nomer if you really want one. It is the same as with colours, for some shades there is no discussion it is e.g. red, blue or yellow, but where does green start and blue end? So bottomline there is nothing that intrinsically clearly separates a zoo from an aquarium or a butterfly house. The real world is far too messy for that, they are all zoos. But there is also no universally agreed upon definition of a zoo and there will never be, there are working (legal) definitions, but each to their own....
Tons of zoos are fully indoors.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
They're still an "aquarium", though.
Example?
Another thought out, well detailed answer, with a different perspective. And I don't think it could have been more blatant than during COVID lockdowns when animals were visited by humans through webcam for enrichment.
DWA was already given as an example. Most aquariums are fully indoors, as are most reptile-focused facilities. If you are looking for something that isn't specialized (in whatever bizarre way you're defining it if you're excluding DWA) look at a place like Sustainable Safari.
They have a variety of animals that are all water based, with an occasional species from other biomes. Vs zoos, which have a variety of land animals, sky animals, and often have water animals, as well. The term zoo doesn't have any sort of specialty, you can (in theory) find any possible species there. Everything else is a specific type of zoo with a name that generally adds limits to what they hold.
I don't know about "tons", but Rainforest Adventures (Tennessee USA) is nearly fully indoors other than the domestic goats. They don't have mega-fauna, but otherwise they have a pretty wide collection of terrestrial mammals, reptiles, and avian animals.
Several herp zoos are indoors, Reptilandia (Texas), Clyde Peelings Reptile Land, Reptile Lagoon, Reptile World Serpentarium, and The Reptarium come to mind. But herp places are not quite a "zoo" like we usually think of.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
I have heard them referred to as terrestrial zoos, which I think best describes the "typical" zoo that comes to mind.
Plenty of your so-called "terrestrial zoos" have many aquatic species.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
I've even seen some really great aquatic animal displays at zoos that didn't call themselves "and aquarium".
Heck, I've seen some impressive gardening and plant collections at zoos that didn't even call themselves "and botanic gardens". One of those was even a theme park.
Ergo this thread.
Just to clarify, Chad did not "buy" them personally, they are owned by the Elanor Investors Group, an ASX listed investment fund. Chad is effectively the CEO of the Elanor Wildlife Park Fund, which also includes Featherdale.
This does present an opportunity for anybody who wants to "own a zoo", in that they can invest in the fund. However, given the was these things work, you would get absolutely no say in how the zoos operate, which I guess would take all the fun out of it.