Public monetary support for UK zoos
- Thread starter GeeZee
- Start date
I think the point being made is the opposite - London has many free attractions for both UK and foreign nationals, so lots of competition for their time.
cerperal
Well-Known Member
I'm not really sure the point is even worth making...
Free attractions in London (notably the museums, the closest example being the NHM with their spirit collection and live insects for research) are either partly or majority funded by the state, often with large income from the National Lottery. British Citizens pay for this, but at a cost that is negligible. Still, tourists get the benefit of entering for free without contributing to the upkeep unless they spend inside. I have no problem with this, and it's an excellent way to ensure education and historic buildings like that are open to all.
ZSL does not get government funding, local or national. This is different to most zoos on the continent, especially Germany, that have either direct funding or energy subsidies applied often. ZSL is, unfortunately, on its own. But equally London and Whipsnade are both just one part of ZSL, and a large proportion of ticket price goes towards the more important parts of the charity - research, in-situ support and education. The zoos are technically a branch of the education section, oddly enough. If you go to the zoo, you pay the cost of all of this, whether you are a British national or not. This is the unfortunate reality of not being subsidised. But more importantly - you cannot compare either ZSL collection with any of the other free attractions in London. Many of us on this site have worked with or at zoos, and I'd wager quite a few of us also have experience in non-zoological attractions as well - the daily costs, let alone upkeep, developments, staffing and events - of a zoological collection are astronomical compared to something like a museum.
If ZSL could double ticket sales, I doubt they'd even reduce ticket cost that much simply because the investment required for that increase in sales would have to be astronomical. For one, moving the entrance of the zoo closer the tube lines (something floated about previously but abandoned due to cost). Someone replied to me before this thread was moved stating London Zoo is easy to get to. Compared to Whipsnade, perhaps. Compared to Berlin, Prague, Leipzig? God no. You have a half hour walk (40 minutes now one of the main routes is closed) from either Baker Street or Regent's Park station, or you can get a bus that takes an annoyingly long time stop-starting around Regent's Park after getting the tube to an appropriate station. To go to the NHM you step off the underground and walk 5 minutes through a tunnel. It is an unfortunate reality that tourists, when offered with the choice of an expensive zoo that's moderately annoying to get to or a museum that also has animals in it, is free, is easy to get to, and has 2 more museums next door, will choose the easy option 9 times out of 10.
I'm aware I've gotten off-topic from the original point about paid entry vs free but it was things I wished to say in the previous thread but didn't want to derail it. All of this applies to BZS and BZP and they don't have the advantage of having a fully-stocked open zoo to help with funding currently. The BZP entrance fee is steep for the species list but for the experience it certainly isn't, especially considering the conservation work that hasn't stopped in the background.
The London Zoo ticket is, for what it's worth to me, a price that's steep but deserved. If I could take £5 of funding per person that subsidies the NHM's entrance fee and give it to ZSL I would in a heartbeat, if just to give the NHM a kick up the arse to actually add a new development as opposed to occasionally dusting 30-year-old halls, but alas that is not the world we live in.
ZSL and, apparently, BZS are both in fairly good financial situations currently. ZSL more so, I'd imagine. If they had public funding or even massive private funding like zoos on the continent they would be world beaters in every sense of the word. But they don't, so I think we should commend the job that they have done especially in recent years wrangling costs and developments.
Even for me this hasn't been a particularly coherent reply but I hope the point has got across. I'm honestly not entirely sure what the point of the original thread was beyond moaning about ZSL and BZS again for the sake of it. But anyway, that's my opinion on the matter.
Free attractions in London (notably the museums, the closest example being the NHM with their spirit collection and live insects for research) are either partly or majority funded by the state, often with large income from the National Lottery. British Citizens pay for this, but at a cost that is negligible. Still, tourists get the benefit of entering for free without contributing to the upkeep unless they spend inside. I have no problem with this, and it's an excellent way to ensure education and historic buildings like that are open to all.
ZSL does not get government funding, local or national. This is different to most zoos on the continent, especially Germany, that have either direct funding or energy subsidies applied often. ZSL is, unfortunately, on its own. But equally London and Whipsnade are both just one part of ZSL, and a large proportion of ticket price goes towards the more important parts of the charity - research, in-situ support and education. The zoos are technically a branch of the education section, oddly enough. If you go to the zoo, you pay the cost of all of this, whether you are a British national or not. This is the unfortunate reality of not being subsidised. But more importantly - you cannot compare either ZSL collection with any of the other free attractions in London. Many of us on this site have worked with or at zoos, and I'd wager quite a few of us also have experience in non-zoological attractions as well - the daily costs, let alone upkeep, developments, staffing and events - of a zoological collection are astronomical compared to something like a museum.
If ZSL could double ticket sales, I doubt they'd even reduce ticket cost that much simply because the investment required for that increase in sales would have to be astronomical. For one, moving the entrance of the zoo closer the tube lines (something floated about previously but abandoned due to cost). Someone replied to me before this thread was moved stating London Zoo is easy to get to. Compared to Whipsnade, perhaps. Compared to Berlin, Prague, Leipzig? God no. You have a half hour walk (40 minutes now one of the main routes is closed) from either Baker Street or Regent's Park station, or you can get a bus that takes an annoyingly long time stop-starting around Regent's Park after getting the tube to an appropriate station. To go to the NHM you step off the underground and walk 5 minutes through a tunnel. It is an unfortunate reality that tourists, when offered with the choice of an expensive zoo that's moderately annoying to get to or a museum that also has animals in it, is free, is easy to get to, and has 2 more museums next door, will choose the easy option 9 times out of 10.
I'm aware I've gotten off-topic from the original point about paid entry vs free but it was things I wished to say in the previous thread but didn't want to derail it. All of this applies to BZS and BZP and they don't have the advantage of having a fully-stocked open zoo to help with funding currently. The BZP entrance fee is steep for the species list but for the experience it certainly isn't, especially considering the conservation work that hasn't stopped in the background.
The London Zoo ticket is, for what it's worth to me, a price that's steep but deserved. If I could take £5 of funding per person that subsidies the NHM's entrance fee and give it to ZSL I would in a heartbeat, if just to give the NHM a kick up the arse to actually add a new development as opposed to occasionally dusting 30-year-old halls, but alas that is not the world we live in.
ZSL and, apparently, BZS are both in fairly good financial situations currently. ZSL more so, I'd imagine. If they had public funding or even massive private funding like zoos on the continent they would be world beaters in every sense of the word. But they don't, so I think we should commend the job that they have done especially in recent years wrangling costs and developments.
Even for me this hasn't been a particularly coherent reply but I hope the point has got across. I'm honestly not entirely sure what the point of the original thread was beyond moaning about ZSL and BZS again for the sake of it. But anyway, that's my opinion on the matter.
I think the point arose from comments on visitor numbers for London as compared to zoos in Europe, the concept being that, for the casual tourist, there are free attractions in London which might therefore be more of a draw. Meanwhile, in Europe, many museums (etc) are not free, but zoos are generally cheaper than in England, often due to the support from government. So the different attractions are more equitably priced. A perfectly reasonable point imo. Less a moan and more an explanation for why visitor numbers might be different.
I've been away with friends to European cities with notable zoos and they've not wanted to go to a zoo as they've seen it as 'just another zoo'. Let's be honest: people who give opinions on a forum dedicated to zoos are probably not representative of the mindset of the general public.
The thread was an offshoot of the BZP thread which was considering some of the issues facing the zoo.
I've been away with friends to European cities with notable zoos and they've not wanted to go to a zoo as they've seen it as 'just another zoo'. Let's be honest: people who give opinions on a forum dedicated to zoos are probably not representative of the mindset of the general public.
The thread was an offshoot of the BZP thread which was considering some of the issues facing the zoo.
cerperal
Well-Known Member
That I am aware of because I couldn't for the life of me work out what it had to do with BZP
Strathmorezoo
Well-Known Member
The judicial review started today
Thanks and I'll keep my fingers crossed for a positive outcome for the zoo.
Lafone
Well-Known Member
I won't repeat what has been said already by other people in this thread, I agree with the comments on visit attraction competition vs poor quality at London, for example, but I don't see the evidence for what you are talking about in terms of animal rights activists in the UK directly impacting zoo visit numbers at London or Bristol and fundamentally shaping public opinion about zoos. Can you cite a source?
OkapiJohn
Well-Known Member
To me surprises me why London Zoo never got access to some extra land from Regent's Park to expand in area to have the chance to design some proper modern enclosures. There is a lot of empty grass in RP that could be put a better use. I know ZSL has Whipsnade, but London Zoo would benefit from having a little more space.
ZooNews2024
Well-Known Member
Could you explain exactly what is so terribly wrong at Colchester if it would be 'closed down within the week for numerous welfare violations' if placed in Regents Park, and explain how it continues to be awarded its Zoo Licence if it is really so bad, as the standards should be similar across ALL UK collections.
And, I'll please stand corrected if my memory serves me badly - it (London Zoo) DID get a massive direct influx of cash direct from Margaret Thatchers Government, and pretty much wasted it. It was also offered a direct and continuous funding package similar to that which Kew enjoys and the Zoological Society turned down the Government's offer.
cerperal
Well-Known Member
...Because Colchester is effectively twice the footprint of London? If you could work out a way to fit Colchester's collection into Regent's Park, I will put a word in to make you head of ZSL.
40 years ago, and if my historical knowledge of ZSL serves me well it was spent in the hope the zoo would be able to generate enough funding itself from the resultant changes. It did not, and nearly closed in the 1990s. Equally that predates public funding for museums
ZooNews2024
Well-Known Member
...Because Colchester is effectively twice the footprint of London? If you could work out a way to fit Colchester's collection into Regent's Park, I will put a word in to make you head of ZSL.
40 years ago, and if my historical knowledge of ZSL serves me well it was spent in the hope the zoo would be able to generate enough funding itself from the resultant changes. It did not, and nearly closed in the 1990s. Equally that predates public funding for museums
Good to know that you have such good contacts at London. It was pipaluk who made the comment and not me. Sorry I didnt realise that Colchester's collection was so much larger thank Londons - every time a stock list is produced it seems to get smaller. I did know though that Margaret Thatcher was in power 40 years ago, but thanks again for the reminder.
There are a lot of influential people who would take a dim view of losing land from a park.
And would make a not entirely unreasonable point that the ZSL seems to have its hands full managing what it already has.
I recall reading the debate about whether anti-zoos in the UK have much effect on zoos' success... and whether the anti-zoo movement is sustainable.
And so I thought before giving my two pennies into this... what makes a mass movement sustainable, exactly?
And what I came up with - is that successful mass movements don't only tend to have a following - they tend to generate a following too. If you can think about any cause which has been for years and protests have been for years - think climate change, Israel-Palestine, LGBT+ rights... if you look at the protests over the years there always tends to be a young demographic - a sign that new people are being recruited into the cause. And often it is that the movements these days that gain the most traction are those with a significant youth following.
But looking at some zoo demonstrations in the United Kingdom I see a rather different trend. Most - nay, all of the people at the demonstrations - with the placards etc - are adults. And a good fraction of them look to be older adults at that. There isn't much of a sign of a youth movement - not much of a sign of sustenance. This is not an issue that appears to be on the minds of the youth of today... at least not loudly and publicly. It appears generational.
And this would be curious then if we are to equate the veganism cause to the anti-zoo cause - because the veganism cause, in the UK including, has a substantial following - with many people of the younger generations taking up veganism for ethical or environmental reasons. And whilst many vegans in other parts of the world follow the 'whole nine yards' ideology of refusing anything animal related, this seems illogical in the UK with an apparent active, youth-led vegan movement but not so much of a youth-led anti-zoo one. [And if I recall correctly many zoos offer vegan options for dining? Wouldn't make sense to offer them if the vegans aren't coming to the zoo]
And so in summary I do not think that the anti-zoo movement in the UK could be called 'substantial' in the same vain as other movements - because it does have something of a following, yes... but it doesn't have a sustained following that successful movements do.
And so I thought before giving my two pennies into this... what makes a mass movement sustainable, exactly?
And what I came up with - is that successful mass movements don't only tend to have a following - they tend to generate a following too. If you can think about any cause which has been for years and protests have been for years - think climate change, Israel-Palestine, LGBT+ rights... if you look at the protests over the years there always tends to be a young demographic - a sign that new people are being recruited into the cause. And often it is that the movements these days that gain the most traction are those with a significant youth following.
But looking at some zoo demonstrations in the United Kingdom I see a rather different trend. Most - nay, all of the people at the demonstrations - with the placards etc - are adults. And a good fraction of them look to be older adults at that. There isn't much of a sign of a youth movement - not much of a sign of sustenance. This is not an issue that appears to be on the minds of the youth of today... at least not loudly and publicly. It appears generational.
And this would be curious then if we are to equate the veganism cause to the anti-zoo cause - because the veganism cause, in the UK including, has a substantial following - with many people of the younger generations taking up veganism for ethical or environmental reasons. And whilst many vegans in other parts of the world follow the 'whole nine yards' ideology of refusing anything animal related, this seems illogical in the UK with an apparent active, youth-led vegan movement but not so much of a youth-led anti-zoo one. [And if I recall correctly many zoos offer vegan options for dining? Wouldn't make sense to offer them if the vegans aren't coming to the zoo]
And so in summary I do not think that the anti-zoo movement in the UK could be called 'substantial' in the same vain as other movements - because it does have something of a following, yes... but it doesn't have a sustained following that successful movements do.
Last edited:
ZooNews2024
Well-Known Member
The summer 'gate protests' at zoos stopped post-Covid, but have started to happen again since. They do appear to have their origins in militant veganism, but the actual attendees are usually the same people who sabotage fox-hunts and the like. The hunts generally seem to well organised, have good contacts/informers and sources of information, know who the 'sabs' are, and track their movements. As you say, all seem to be adults and the same limited number of faces appear again and again.
And I think with regards of the question of why the UK's zoos are not as often attended as say Germany's....
I think part of the reason... not to echo... is that the UK, for most international tourists, who wish to see cities, is a bit 'thin'. As in, London, Manchester, and then... not much else. For tourists from other countries who wish to see what the UK is like... London is most often the go-to. And is the zoo on the minds of those visiting? Possibly. But will many tourists to London ignore the zoo, where it is difficult to park a car and a decent walk is necessary to get there? Probably. And there is also Edinburgh, which plays a rather small second-fiddle to London. And of course Edinburgh has a zoo, whose proximal location gives it a good deal of attendance, and when they had pandas there was most probably more international tourists attending. Wales is somewhat less visited, and I question whether the Welsh Mountain Zoo, nice as it is, is on the same 'level' as London or Edinburgh... That is to say that internationals do visit other cities of the UK as well... most of which happen to be university cities and most if not all of which don't really have a major zoo to speak of.
And so here then I think is part of the reason for Chester Zoo's success - it is near Manchester but closer to Liverpool, which receives many millions of visitors thanks to its connection with the defining band of the UK's culture... and happens to be one of the most major outdoor attractions in the area... compared to London which is crawling with outdoor attractions. I recall it is or at least was at one point that Chester Zoo has/had more yearly attendees than did Buckingham Palace. And I would guess part of the reason for this is that something like the Palace is large enough to be seen from afar, so tourists don't have to necessarily go and visit it... whereas something like a zoo is something you just have to see. Big destination + Relatively little to do outdoors = big success. Big destination + competition + inconvenient access = good amount of success, but still lesser.
And so I think the way this contrasts with something like the US or Germany is that in Germany there is Berlin, and Hannover, and Munich, and Frankfurt ... and the United States has more cities than I care to list. And so more tourists going there knowing what to expect... to some degree. Whereas in the UK there are cities, but most of them don't have zoos - and there are zoos - but most of them not in cities where tourists are most likely to be. Compared to the US or Germany where many cities have a zoo to visit, in the UK many zoos are a more 'local' sort of affair. What I think would be interesting would be to find out how many visitors Vincennes Zoo gets / year - as I was unable to find. Because it has the proximity to the major city, Paris... but then I would expect that the sheer number of things to do in Paris would again not leave much justification for most tourists to visit a zoo. From what I see Disneyland is the most attended thing overall in Paris... guess it provides creature comforts for tourists of a particular nation.
And so I think... if Zoo Berlin were in Regent's Park would it get more visitors? Perhaps. If Zoo Berlin were in Regent's Park and there was a decent parking area in the proximity and/or it was just across the road from the Regent's Park Station, with not many other outdoor things in London to compete with, would it get more visitors? Probably.
I think part of the reason... not to echo... is that the UK, for most international tourists, who wish to see cities, is a bit 'thin'. As in, London, Manchester, and then... not much else. For tourists from other countries who wish to see what the UK is like... London is most often the go-to. And is the zoo on the minds of those visiting? Possibly. But will many tourists to London ignore the zoo, where it is difficult to park a car and a decent walk is necessary to get there? Probably. And there is also Edinburgh, which plays a rather small second-fiddle to London. And of course Edinburgh has a zoo, whose proximal location gives it a good deal of attendance, and when they had pandas there was most probably more international tourists attending. Wales is somewhat less visited, and I question whether the Welsh Mountain Zoo, nice as it is, is on the same 'level' as London or Edinburgh... That is to say that internationals do visit other cities of the UK as well... most of which happen to be university cities and most if not all of which don't really have a major zoo to speak of.
And so here then I think is part of the reason for Chester Zoo's success - it is near Manchester but closer to Liverpool, which receives many millions of visitors thanks to its connection with the defining band of the UK's culture... and happens to be one of the most major outdoor attractions in the area... compared to London which is crawling with outdoor attractions. I recall it is or at least was at one point that Chester Zoo has/had more yearly attendees than did Buckingham Palace. And I would guess part of the reason for this is that something like the Palace is large enough to be seen from afar, so tourists don't have to necessarily go and visit it... whereas something like a zoo is something you just have to see. Big destination + Relatively little to do outdoors = big success. Big destination + competition + inconvenient access = good amount of success, but still lesser.
And so I think the way this contrasts with something like the US or Germany is that in Germany there is Berlin, and Hannover, and Munich, and Frankfurt ... and the United States has more cities than I care to list. And so more tourists going there knowing what to expect... to some degree. Whereas in the UK there are cities, but most of them don't have zoos - and there are zoos - but most of them not in cities where tourists are most likely to be. Compared to the US or Germany where many cities have a zoo to visit, in the UK many zoos are a more 'local' sort of affair. What I think would be interesting would be to find out how many visitors Vincennes Zoo gets / year - as I was unable to find. Because it has the proximity to the major city, Paris... but then I would expect that the sheer number of things to do in Paris would again not leave much justification for most tourists to visit a zoo. From what I see Disneyland is the most attended thing overall in Paris... guess it provides creature comforts for tourists of a particular nation.
And so I think... if Zoo Berlin were in Regent's Park would it get more visitors? Perhaps. If Zoo Berlin were in Regent's Park and there was a decent parking area in the proximity and/or it was just across the road from the Regent's Park Station, with not many other outdoor things in London to compete with, would it get more visitors? Probably.
How did Pairi Daiza get such high visitor numbers? That has a location more comparable to a typical British regional zoo. Not in or directly near a large town or cities, but a few smaller cities within about an hours drive.
Vienna and Prague zoos also have higher visitor numbers than London and those cities have other attractions that visitors travel to see. It could be argued that those attract a demographic less likely to visit a zoo.
Vienna and Prague zoos also have higher visitor numbers than London and those cities have other attractions that visitors travel to see. It could be argued that those attract a demographic less likely to visit a zoo.