To give the zoo an ounce of credit, that species list was nice. Maybe just 4 stars too high?
Most overrated zoo
- Thread starter amur leopard
- Start date
Yeah, that's fair. Half a star since they have some cool species is reasonable. Pale Fox, Chinese Alligator, West African Crocodile, Carpathian Lynx, Siberian Lynx, Ivory-billed Aracari...
Awful zoos tend to have really high ratings for the most part; people who go to them don't realize (or don't care) how awful they are. Popcorn Park has a 4.6 with 1,900 reviews, Luray is 4.4 with 900, Living Treasures Jones Mills is 4.6 with 1,500. Even Natural Bridge Zoo, which has received tons of (deserved) bad press over the years and is a big focus of ARA campaigns, is still at a 3.3 with 1,700 reviews.
For what reasons? I was planning on going when visiting Europe but I want to hear your opinion.
In my opinion, this zoo is a prime example of an expensive false front, where the animals are just another part of the elaborate decoration. And given how apparently money isn't an issue, the quality of the exhibits (especially newer ones) is all too often inconsistent, and sometimes just inadequate.
Edit: I just saw that the zoo had already been mentioned in 2020. My bad...
it's hard to get a rating lower than 4 on google. Even de paay have 4.3
I've mentioned this in the "A really big fiasco" thread as well. Long story short: some of the worst zoos are really popular among certain people because they give the audience what they want. And unfortunately, a great number of zoo visitors are too ignorant, too uneducated, too selfish too impatient and frankly, too dumb and immature to care about animal welfare. For them, it's more important to "get their money's worth", which includes all possible direct interactions with animals, including petting, feeding and taking pictures with as many animals as possible, no matter whether the animals like it or not. And then, after buying kitschy memorabilia and eating bad fast food, they can drive home, having satisfied their consumptive needs - for now.
The visitors documented in "Tiger King" are great examples of this kind of people, and I have seen my fair share at WdG (including a spoilt brat who threw a tantrum because she was allowed to pet the gaboon viper) and in zoos all over the world. It's only when the institution in question has been publicly ostracized that their selfishness is no longer socially acceptable and they have to forbear from it. Shaquille O'Neal in the documentary was just a prominent example among many.
And your zoo's Google rating can drop dramatically if you get bad publicity...
Last edited:
I’m hoping that there is an important word missing in the viper sentence!
Sphenisciologist
Well-Known Member
SeaWorld
Oh, there is; good for you to notice. Otherwise, there would be no more WdG. The girl was a yankee, btw. I wonder whether she will have more chances with her wish at one of the American reptile zoos. Somehow, however, I kinda doubt that. Not even Joe Exotic would be that crazy...
Just remember, the customer is always right!
Have you never heard about the absolutely insane thing the reptile zoos do out here? It would not shock me in the least if some pet shop or reptile zoo owner let her pet a viper if she paid extra. One place nearby me puts out venomous snakes for presentations all the time.
Using a rattlesnake in a presentation and letting visitors pet a viper are two very different things. One is being done by a trained professional. I don't think there any American zoos that would let a visitor pet a venomous snake.
So? I put out venomous snakes for presentations as well. And under my surveilance, people can touch one of our friendly Western hognose snakes - which happen to be slightly venomous, but are nevertheless popular pets.
I well remember when a fellow graduate student came in to coffee one afternoon; well known as a reptile keeper, he put a small cardboard box on the table, which twitched slightly while he went to get his drink. He returned; “okay, what’s in the box?” “No idea, not expecting anything “ The box and bag it contained were opened, and a small brown snake extracted and passed around to us all. “So what is it?” “ False Smooth Snake” “Oh, “ I say “ let me see, from Southern Europe?” “Yes” “and back-fanged poisonous?” “Yes, that’s the one”
Macroprotodon cucullatus is a lovely little snake. Given its small size and mild venom, it's quite harmless. What isn't harmless, though, is to use the word "poisonous" instead of venomous in the presence of herpetologists when talking about snakes other than Tiger keelbacks...
Last edited:
No-one really used the word venomous back in the 70s!
The times, they are a-changin’...
It pains me to say this but, Colchester Zoo. The exhibits and the welfare are, for the most part, outstanding, especially for the UK, but it’s design and layout is extremely formulaic and the collection is barely elevated above anABC collection