Flamingoland, N. Yorkshire, as most of us know, originally opened as Flamingo Park Zoo. Over the years it has gradually changed into a theme park, however still retaining a zoological collection. Chessington World of Adventures is another example of a theme park combined with a zoo, so is Drayton Manor. What do members think of these places? Is it correct to have a zoo housed at an attraction where white knuckle rides would appear to be the main attraction? Is it making the animals living at these places into nothing more than fairground side show attractions? On the other hand is it perfectly correct for these parks to continue with a zoo as long as the animals are well cared for and housed in conditions equal to any good "zoo only" establishment? My feelings on this are mixed, I would therefore be interested on members views.
Is it correct to have a mixed theme park and zoo?
- Thread starter TARZAN
- Start date
On a personal level, I'd rather the two were kept separate - I enjoy both, but the combined places always end up being an expensive zoo or a theme park I end up rushing because of the zoo!
However, assuming a comparable level of animal husbandry to a 'normal' zoo, I've no particular objection to the two being combined; although I'm not a fan of big rides in very close proximity to the animals.
So, I don't object, but personally I'd rather enjoy each on its own!
However, assuming a comparable level of animal husbandry to a 'normal' zoo, I've no particular objection to the two being combined; although I'm not a fan of big rides in very close proximity to the animals.
So, I don't object, but personally I'd rather enjoy each on its own!
Just the price of a ticket is enough to scare the average zoo enthusiast away, or at least get him or her to restrict it to one visit every decade or so. We might accept the high price for places like Port Lympne, which are actual zoos, but paying extra to be in the presence of rollercoasters (which I'm not about to try out) is not something I, for one, fancy one bit.
I went to the US in September and would have visited SeaWorld San Antonio if it had been open. Not for the rollercoasters but for the Hawaiian Munk Seals, Belugas, etc. I can ignore the fun fair machines and the ticket price) if the animal section provides me with something rare; but do Chessington and Flamingoland have anything on exhibit that you cannot see in many other places around the UK? If not, they'll find themselves on the very back of my list of zoos to visit when I move to the UK next year.
I went to the US in September and would have visited SeaWorld San Antonio if it had been open. Not for the rollercoasters but for the Hawaiian Munk Seals, Belugas, etc. I can ignore the fun fair machines and the ticket price) if the animal section provides me with something rare; but do Chessington and Flamingoland have anything on exhibit that you cannot see in many other places around the UK? If not, they'll find themselves on the very back of my list of zoos to visit when I move to the UK next year.
Summed up my feelings exactly, Generally would prefer them not to be mixed but if husbandry is up to scrath then who am I to say ?
adrian1963
Well-Known Member
I don't like the idea of paying towards a amusement park (I will not be using) so don't bother to visit as ticket prices at these locations are for both.
I do agree though with the husbandry of animals if it's at a good level then there should be no problem
I do agree though with the husbandry of animals if it's at a good level then there should be no problem
devilfish
Well-Known Member
I agree with Maguari and Lee; noise would be a concern, but if the animals are kept in good conditions there's not much to disagree with. However, I feel that as zoos (where a primary purpose is to entertain) develop, the line between zoo and theme park might become blurred at times - for example, individual exhibits may offer a ride, like Port Lympne's African Experience [which I've yet to see, so I apologise if it's a poor example.]
Most zoos also tend to have at least some kind of 'fairground' ride as well, e.g. London's carousel or the West Midland Safari Park's 'leisure park'.
I also think that zoo-theme park mixes will become yet more common as theme parks develop money to offer new experiences in the entertainment sector; it's only a matter of time until zoo exhibits and small aquaria become frequent additions to theme parks, as we're starting to see with Merlin's attractions in the UK.
Some theme parks get such revenue from their rides that they're really able to turn the 'zoo section' into something special; examples can be found (as Baldur mentioned) in the SeaWorld and Busch Gardens parks.
I also think that public opinion to zoos is getting more polarised, and rollercoasters and rides are a big draw to people who would otherwise avoid zoos. To a certain extent, the same can be said about zoos drawing in people less likely to visit a theme park.
Ultimately it's a visitor numbers thing, and it's welcome if they can offer something special.
This link may be of interest to you:
Multi-Disciplinary Integration…A Mouthful of Fun! Designing Zoos
Most zoos also tend to have at least some kind of 'fairground' ride as well, e.g. London's carousel or the West Midland Safari Park's 'leisure park'.
I also think that zoo-theme park mixes will become yet more common as theme parks develop money to offer new experiences in the entertainment sector; it's only a matter of time until zoo exhibits and small aquaria become frequent additions to theme parks, as we're starting to see with Merlin's attractions in the UK.
Some theme parks get such revenue from their rides that they're really able to turn the 'zoo section' into something special; examples can be found (as Baldur mentioned) in the SeaWorld and Busch Gardens parks.
I also think that public opinion to zoos is getting more polarised, and rollercoasters and rides are a big draw to people who would otherwise avoid zoos. To a certain extent, the same can be said about zoos drawing in people less likely to visit a theme park.
Ultimately it's a visitor numbers thing, and it's welcome if they can offer something special.
This link may be of interest to you:
Multi-Disciplinary Integration…A Mouthful of Fun! Designing Zoos
Last edited:
I have to say, I strongly dislike this kinda place. I have worked at Drayton Manor, not in the zoo unfortunately, but spent every lunchtime and break there which was of course fantastic, the animals were in the main well cared for.
However, parents had spent a few hours in the morning feeding their kids buckets of sugar and hyping them up on the rollercoasters, and then looking for some quiet time, released them into the zoo. Animals had stuff thrown at them, were screamed at almost constantly, kids were running about all over, I just don't think it could have been a nice environment for them at all. I know all zoos have some of this, but Drayton had way more than I've ever seen.
However, parents had spent a few hours in the morning feeding their kids buckets of sugar and hyping them up on the rollercoasters, and then looking for some quiet time, released them into the zoo. Animals had stuff thrown at them, were screamed at almost constantly, kids were running about all over, I just don't think it could have been a nice environment for them at all. I know all zoos have some of this, but Drayton had way more than I've ever seen.
easytigger
Well-Known Member
I spent 10 years in the zoo department at Chessington and saw quite a shift in favour of the animal collection, and they do have big plans for the collection, and while things like the on going gorilla extension might make some people query the place, the animals are given very high standards of husbandry and enrichment.
I look it like this, lets say a collection like chessington get a million people theough the gates during the year / season, how many of those people would normally visit a stand alone animal collection? 30-40% maybe? So this puts them in a posistion to enthrawl and indirectly educate the guests about the zoo.
Whether its via animal presentations or just while they wander round the zoo to 'get some peace and quiet' for a high percentage of people that visit the animal areas it could be they very first time they have seen a binturong or a fossa, or in many cases the first time they've seen a real life lion or tiger, and if those people can go away with an understanding of deforestation, bushmeat, trade in tiger parts etc then yes animal collections within a theme park, when done right do have a place and a role to play.
I look it like this, lets say a collection like chessington get a million people theough the gates during the year / season, how many of those people would normally visit a stand alone animal collection? 30-40% maybe? So this puts them in a posistion to enthrawl and indirectly educate the guests about the zoo.
Whether its via animal presentations or just while they wander round the zoo to 'get some peace and quiet' for a high percentage of people that visit the animal areas it could be they very first time they have seen a binturong or a fossa, or in many cases the first time they've seen a real life lion or tiger, and if those people can go away with an understanding of deforestation, bushmeat, trade in tiger parts etc then yes animal collections within a theme park, when done right do have a place and a role to play.
Last edited:
zamba
Active Member
i went to chessington with my school earlier in the year and the only noise of rollercoasters was NOT very loud. i think we should still allow theme parks to include a zoo as long as the animals are kept a safe distance from the rides. and if the keepers ignored the animals and didn't give them any enrichment then the animals would get stressecd and it would no longer be happy in a noisy enviroment.
I was very surprised by the aquarium at Alton Towers, I was expecting half a dozen fish in a tank but it was very interesting and as someone said catches people who wouldn't dream of visiting an animal only place.
I would second that, the SeaLife at Alton Towers is actually quite a good one and has always been busy when I've been - it's not much smaller than a 'free-standing' SLC. I've always mentioned it to people I know who were going and one guy from work spent an hour or so texting me pictures of rays, spider crabs and so on. It just goes to show how these things can reach people who otherwise wouldn't bother.
Do you know if the Gorilla extension/2nd enclosure is finished yet?
My personal view is that animals exhibited in theme/leisure parks tend to be an auxilliary attraction.
When i first visited Chessington in 1982 they had recently opened a funfair type attraction outside the animal area. A friend who was working there at the time said management were spending all their funds on the rides and attractions, and the zoo was beginning to suffer for it. And I could see that in the enclosures and health of the animals. Ever since then, I've never liked the isea of zoos combined with funparks.
I'm glad to hear Chessington has turned around.
Earlier this year i visited Australia's Seaworld, for the first time in many years, and was very disappointed. As far as animal exhibits go they had a large shark/coral reef tank, a ray tank, polar bears, and Little Penguin exhibit. There were some pools with dolphins (no underwater viewing) and a pen with injured seabirds.
There was a dolphin show (which I didn't catch) and a seal show which I also didn't see because it was some mystery story. The rest of the park was rides, food outlets, souvenir shops, and other outlets for relieving you of your burdensome cash.
However, despite there being very little animal exhibits, the exhibits they had were good and animals well looked after. In fact, a bottlenosed dolphin was born the day before I arrived.
In this case, the park makes a fortune from the the theme park side and is able to ensure the animals are well looked after.
Hix
I'm glad to hear Chessington has turned around.
Earlier this year i visited Australia's Seaworld, for the first time in many years, and was very disappointed. As far as animal exhibits go they had a large shark/coral reef tank, a ray tank, polar bears, and Little Penguin exhibit. There were some pools with dolphins (no underwater viewing) and a pen with injured seabirds.
There was a dolphin show (which I didn't catch) and a seal show which I also didn't see because it was some mystery story. The rest of the park was rides, food outlets, souvenir shops, and other outlets for relieving you of your burdensome cash.
However, despite there being very little animal exhibits, the exhibits they had were good and animals well looked after. In fact, a bottlenosed dolphin was born the day before I arrived.
In this case, the park makes a fortune from the the theme park side and is able to ensure the animals are well looked after.
Hix
Zoos combined with funparks - well, it depends on how it is made.
Animals should allways be in the foreground. Than, rides should be integrated in the landscape and prevend noise should be one of the most important goals:
For example: River Boat Safaris (like in Hannover), seperated "Shake"-Adventures (Wild Arctic at the Seaworld Parks), Monorails or Trains thru or along greater exhibits, suspension bridges are okay amo. But that should be only additional stuff to make the experience of meeting/seeing animals bigger.
Wild Water Rafting-Experiences (like in the Asian Part of Disneys Animal Kingdom) and rollercoasters which leading thru and/or above the heads of the animals aren't (although I loved the raft in DAK). This is too much. So I think that for example Busch Gardens Tampa exaggerate with its rides.
One solution could be (if you don't want to resign of rollercoasters etc. because they draw a lot of people and so money) strictly divided parts. One for animals, one for the rides. Each part has its own entrance fee, but could be also combined (If I remember correctly, Serengetipark Hodenhagen, Germany, is or was going this war. And maybe there are also examples in Italy, Spain, France or Danemark).
Animals should allways be in the foreground. Than, rides should be integrated in the landscape and prevend noise should be one of the most important goals:
For example: River Boat Safaris (like in Hannover), seperated "Shake"-Adventures (Wild Arctic at the Seaworld Parks), Monorails or Trains thru or along greater exhibits, suspension bridges are okay amo. But that should be only additional stuff to make the experience of meeting/seeing animals bigger.
Wild Water Rafting-Experiences (like in the Asian Part of Disneys Animal Kingdom) and rollercoasters which leading thru and/or above the heads of the animals aren't (although I loved the raft in DAK). This is too much. So I think that for example Busch Gardens Tampa exaggerate with its rides.
One solution could be (if you don't want to resign of rollercoasters etc. because they draw a lot of people and so money) strictly divided parts. One for animals, one for the rides. Each part has its own entrance fee, but could be also combined (If I remember correctly, Serengetipark Hodenhagen, Germany, is or was going this war. And maybe there are also examples in Italy, Spain, France or Danemark).
Well, theres a first, we are both one hundred per cent in agreement!, interesting posts from both sides and can agree with most of what has been stated by everyone, my views on these mixed parks are still mixed.Regarding the high admission prices, obviously the pure zoo visitor is not going to get value for money, they are also paying to go on rides which they have no intention of using, as in the case of Flamingo Land the zoological collection is very much A.B.C., so why pay more to go into Flamingo Land or Chessington than what you pay to enter Chester or London?. These parks do give visitors a good day out, I know people who visit Flamingo Land and they have nothing but praise for it, so if the animals are well taken care of and housed away from the rides I suppose its all well and good , it is after all in the case of Flamingo Land giving people who live in a virtual zoological desert the opportunity to experience zoo animals, it just seams to me a pity that they have to visit the animals in a place shared with rollercoasters etc. rather than at a conventional well run zoological garden.
I personally hate Theme Parks of any sort. Flamingo Park Zoo is my local Zoo and still is (as Flamingo Land). We used to go nearly every year until 10 years ago. We couldn't justify spending so much when we weren't going on any of the rides. We did eventually manage to go last year, but only because we got half-price tickets on ebay, otherwise we still wouldn't have gone. £25 is a ridiculous amount, especially as we're local and just want to see the animals. I wonder how people would feel if they only wanted to go on the rides, but had to splash out extra for the Zoo part they had no intention of seeing! I've just been on the FL website and it says the 2011 Admission rates are coming soon, so no doubt that means they're going up again.
In contrast.... in 1998, prices were going to be slashed from £9.95 in normal season to £2.50 for adults in winter. Children under 14 and old age pensioners would get in for £2. The new deal was that visitors would pay-as-they-go for rides. Now that would be more sensible today!
As for the noise from the Theme rides, well....Flamingo Park only ever had the Fairground at first and sited it right down the bottom near Cowboy City..well away from the animals. Over the years the growth of the Theme Park has meant more and more rides, so that it's moved up nearer to the Zoo and is now IN the Zoo. They should have just kept the theme park on the land north of the car park.
In contrast.... in 1998, prices were going to be slashed from £9.95 in normal season to £2.50 for adults in winter. Children under 14 and old age pensioners would get in for £2. The new deal was that visitors would pay-as-they-go for rides. Now that would be more sensible today!
As for the noise from the Theme rides, well....Flamingo Park only ever had the Fairground at first and sited it right down the bottom near Cowboy City..well away from the animals. Over the years the growth of the Theme Park has meant more and more rides, so that it's moved up nearer to the Zoo and is now IN the Zoo. They should have just kept the theme park on the land north of the car park.
I have no problems with the concept as long as the animals are well-cared for. But the high prices for this combination can annoy me. I think that the average zoo enthusiast doesn't care a jolt about amusement parks, and the average theme park enthusiast doesn't care a jolt about zoos, so both are paying for way too much.
However, it would be a very good idea to have separate entries for the theme park and the zoo respectively (and the possibility of buying a slightly cheaper combi ticket). This way, you avoid paying for more than you actually experience, and if you are one of the people who likes both types of attractions, it's very convenient to have them in one place.
However, it would be a very good idea to have separate entries for the theme park and the zoo respectively (and the possibility of buying a slightly cheaper combi ticket). This way, you avoid paying for more than you actually experience, and if you are one of the people who likes both types of attractions, it's very convenient to have them in one place.
Yes £25 admission certainly deters me from visiting more often, I don't consider myself to be mean as I have never objected to zoo's admission prices, but like yourself I do not want to go on the rides so I am not going to get my money's worth. Just a thought, you mention when the park used to be open in the winter period, perhaps they could consider re opening in the winter the zoo part of the park at a reduced admission charge, this would be beneficial not only to us and other zoo visitors but also to the park by providing some income during a time when it is currently closed. Have you ever considered suggesting this to Flamingo Land?
However, zoo enthusiasts and theme park enthusiasts are minorities! The bulk of visitors, particularly families with kids of varying ages, would welcome the variety offered by both animals as well as rides.
Like what some other forumers have mentioned, if the animals are well taken care of and the rides don't disturb the animals, i don't object to the concept. For the most part, Disney's Animal Kingdom (DAK) is a good example as most of the animals appear well cared for and most of the rides are separate from the animal exhibits. DAK's hybrid concept generates more revenue than traditional zoos could and the quality of its exhibits show what a fat wallet can get you.