Public monetary support for UK zoos
- Thread starter GeeZee
- Start date
cerperal
Well-Known Member
I think it can be argued Prague has significantly less to see in terms of outright attractions than London, and Vienna's zoo is part of the palace gardens as well as claiming to be Europe's best zoo and, accurately, the oldest in the world. I've had acquaintances with no interest in zoos whatsoever that made Schonbrunn top of their visit list while in Vienna based purely on the historical aspect of it. London Zoo also has similar history (admittedly a century or so younger in most places, and often not quite as pretty as Viennese architecture) but I don't think it does well enough to push it.
One thing I have come to somewhat loathe about London in recent decades is what I can only describe as favouritism in the eyes of the authorities toward certain attractions. The Zoo really isn't advertised anywhere, whereas everywhere you go there's posters, billboards and bus adverts for the Tower, the museums and bloody Madame Tussauds - all paid for at least in part by the local government. There's a definite artificial list of accepted tourist destinations that consists of everything remotely tangential to the Monarch, the Eye, Parliament and for whatever reason a load of wax. I don't think advertising is the main reason London lags behind the other zoos mentioned but it's certainly undeniable it has an impact - even the IWM has struggled in recent years due to it being eclipsed, and that's a 10 minute walk from Waterloo.
I may just be reading into it what I want to see, but from my time in Berlin, Prague and Vienna (and even Leipzig) there's publicity for the zoos everywhere, and between that and the lower entry cost for all of them they make quite tantalising spots for tourists with a day to spare and no idea what to do.
And I dare hypothesize that most people think they can make viral videos at the zoo or recreate certain videos they've seen on the web in hopes of getting likes.
Interesting about you acquaintances visiting Schonnbrunn zoo, I know a few people who visited the palace, but none went to the zoo. They all went on the ferris wheel because it was historic, but like I said, not the zoo for that reason.
I know it isn't Europe, but a zoo visit does seem to be a must do thing when going to Australia. It seems almost everyone who goes fits one in somewhere.
I didn't know about local government paying for adverts for some attractions in London. I have seen them and just assumed the attractions paid themselves. The announcement on the tube when approaching Regent's Park station does mention London Zoo. Is that something the zoo paid for or does it get it for free?
cerperal
Well-Known Member
Interesting, I think the people I've known that visited just bought the ticket that includes the entire palace. Which I suppose might be another contributing factor - maybe those tickets are included in Zoo visitor numbers regardless of whether they are scanned in
I think Australia is so synonymous with its strange wildlife and, thanks to a certain Mr Irwin, zoos that they do seem to be an important stop for people visiting.
Regarding London adverts - the tube announcements are less adverts and more to alert tourists when to get off. It's something most European metros do from my experience at least. But the adverts I mean have TFL logos, and plaster the tube stations and buses. I'm not sure if the attractions contribute anything to be part of the advertising scheme, but I do know that they were originally completely subsidised as a way to try and drive more direct tourism traffic to paid attractions and poster-by-poster they are entirely funded by TFL. Which reminds me - GWR and SWR especially run advertising campaigns on their trains at no cost to the attractions themselves. I think this is repaid somewhat by train tickets letting you access deals on tickets, which oddly enough ZSL is part of, but I would imagine the advertising money saved is far more than any lost to those deals.
ZooNews2024
Well-Known Member
No perhaps about it...
Talking from experience, when I was going to Vienna with friends we were looking at things to see that were of particular interest (I already convinced them to go to Haus des Meeres and the Tiergarten, but I didn't inform myself on packages or promotions) and when I was looking at things to do in the Royal Gardens I found a package for Schönbrunn Palace + Zoo + Wüstenhaus + Palmhaus (as well as a complete package with the Sissi Museum and other attractions from the Schönbrunn group) and immediately bought them for all of us; I doubt that if you buy a ticket without zoo included that ticket counts toward the number of zoo tickets sold.
Unfortunately it was almost New Year's Eve and most rooms for the Palace were already booked, so to see at least a few rooms we booked the smallest tour, but managed to incorporate (by half an hour) the Wüstenhaus and Palmhaus in our day at the Zoo; this to say that the Palace 100% gets more visits than the zoo otherwise tickets wouldn't have been sold out.
Joker22Hero
Well-Known Member
OkapiJohn
Well-Known Member
My two cents to the discussion:
Copenhagen is the only other example of a large city zoo I know that has a similar lack of heavy (rail) public transport access. But well, they have pandas, elephants, bears, large greenhouses, rhinos, large savannah, a Nocturnal house, etc.
- Berlin: Pandas, Bears, Elephants, Rhinos, Aquarium, Nocturnal house, huge animal collection. direct public transport access (metro and train)
- Prague: Large Indonesian pavilion, Elephants, great savannah exhibit, large animal collection. Not perfect, but still good transport links with bus.
- Vienna: Aquarium, Rhinos, Hippos, Bears, Elephants, Pandas, Big greenhouse, direct heavy public transport access (metro)
- Paris: Large greenhouse, large savanna exhibits, manatees, and Rhinos. Direct heavy public transport (metro) access.
- Antwerp: Elephants, Rhinos, Hippos, Aquarium, direct heavy public transport access (Train).
- Leipzig: Elephants, Bears, Gondwanaland, Rhinos, Large savannah exhibit, Aquarium, direct access to public transport (Train).
- Basel: Elephants, Aquarium, Rhinos, direct access to public transport
- Zurich: Elephants, Aquarium, Rhinos, Bears, large savannah, Masoala, acceptable access to public transport (Tram).
- And without missing out on Dutch zoos, Rotterdam and Burgers have a lot to offer, even if they are not next door to a train station. Artis is somewhat weak as well (at least in my opinion), but it still has an aquarium and elephants, Micropia and a planetarium.
- And the list could go on for basically most city zoos of main European cities: Rome, Frankfurt, Munich, Lisbon, Barcelona, Budapest, Cologne, etc.
Copenhagen is the only other example of a large city zoo I know that has a similar lack of heavy (rail) public transport access. But well, they have pandas, elephants, bears, large greenhouses, rhinos, large savannah, a Nocturnal house, etc.
Last edited:
Paignton Zoo has announced a 'business auction' in June in order to raise funds to improve the giraffe house further and bring in a bull giraffe for breeding. Not sure what the auction entails but obviously aimed at businesses and companies rather than individuals.
There was a time when most zoos automatically had a male giraffe in their group so I'm not sure why Paignton have been so long without one, its some years now I am aware. Does anyone know if there is a suitable bull available in the UK or would they have to go to the expense and possibly long delay in making an importation?
There was a time when most zoos automatically had a male giraffe in their group so I'm not sure why Paignton have been so long without one, its some years now I am aware. Does anyone know if there is a suitable bull available in the UK or would they have to go to the expense and possibly long delay in making an importation?
flatstingray
Member
I had 3 days to visit London as a foreign tourist (Mexico). Even if I love Zoos and knew the history of the London Zoo, it never came into my mind to go and visit it. I preferred to go to the NHM, which I grew up watching in TV shows with Attenborough and other UK wildlife personalities. The quality, big name and history of the other London attractions is just too high to justify as a tourist half a day at the London Zoo. Now, If I ever went for 3 days to Berlin, I´ll 100% will go to one of the two zoos, as it is a MUST even for the casual tourist. Now, as an indication of it:
Tripadvisor ranks the Berlin Zoo at number #12 on things to do in Berlin. However, the London Zoo ranks at #394.
Publicity wise, as a tourist at London, I never saw an add for the Zoo. However, I was a year ago in a hotel of a small town an hour away of San Antonio, USA, and I saw plenty of pamphlets of the San Antonio Zoo at the lobby.
Tripadvisor ranks the Berlin Zoo at number #12 on things to do in Berlin. However, the London Zoo ranks at #394.
Publicity wise, as a tourist at London, I never saw an add for the Zoo. However, I was a year ago in a hotel of a small town an hour away of San Antonio, USA, and I saw plenty of pamphlets of the San Antonio Zoo at the lobby.
GeeZee
Well-Known Member
Ah I see theyve made a new thread from the BZP so hopefully we can have a broader discussion, the points given about BZP were from the original BZP thread (and more relevant to that) but generally speaking I'd say its pretty universally accepted that the animal rights movement collectively in the UK is amongst the most long standing and established in the world (and consequently part of the British consciousness/pysche).
I feel that whenever there is support for a Zoo in the UK, it is counterbalanced by a group such as Born Free , PETA , ALF who are given a overinflated platform (by the media) even though the standards in the UK are amongst the highest in the world with the most legislation etc, whereas from my experience at travelling in Europe, such groups do not carry as much clout, theres a reason why the term animal rights extremism was first used in the UK.
While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, and certainly in the past (as I have mentioned) the intentions of these groups are noble (and I would be inclined to agree), I feel that today they really dismiss and degrade the hard work UK Zoos do for conservation / rewilding etc (as well as the broader benefits for society as a whole such as sustainability and wellbeing, which are underestimated), whenever I talk to people in the UK about this matter generally their perception of Zoos are rather negative, and based on Zoos perhaps 50 years ago or more, whereas this viewpoint is less prevalent in other countries.
Last edited:
Lafone
Well-Known Member
You haven't produced evidence for the impact any of those organisations have on zoo visit numbers.
How many people have that many discussions about zoos everyday, unless they are started by people who are raising it because they are pro or anti zoo. I am a fan of zoos myself but I really think you are exaggerating the impact any of these activists have. Lots of people enjoy a day out at the zoo (and rightly so!). I'd suggest numbers reflect that vs some activist inspired boycott.
According to this survey conducted in the UK in 2020, while some people did support the organisation, 33% of respondents had never even heard of PETA in the first place. It doesn't suggest a widespread influence.
Which people support PETA? | YouGov
Of course anti zoo / animal rights people attack zoos, it's how they roll. But are they really such an existential threat?
GeeZee
Well-Known Member
While of course PETA is one of many, its notable as they have been known for openly claiming nobody should ever support Zoos and that 'Conservation is a Con' (this catchphrase is also used by a number of other groups such as Freedom for Animals). Even by that survey it gives a majority being aware of PETA and of those who are aware , 46% a positive opinion of them - which is rather substantial I'd of thought.
Its not so much that I am exaggerating the impact of these groups, but I feel that because of them generally British people are more anti zoo when compared to other countries, and underestimate the positive impacts that a Zoo may have.
It isnt solely about visitor numbers, its about public support for Zoos more broadly, the BZP Gorilla Fund falling entirely flat of its target is an example of this. Compare this to say, Copenhagen Zoo's panda enclosure wherby they raised the equivalent of $24m from the community to build it.
Lafone
Well-Known Member
Where is the evidence the fund raising is directly linked to these groups? You haven't proven a causal link. Where is the evidence British people are more anti zoo than other countries? Opinion because someone told you they don't like zoos or feel because you like zoos and don't understand why other people don't just isn't evidence.
GeeZee
Well-Known Member
There’s plenty, I personally feel that it’s partly because of the very strong animal welfare/rights groups/lobby in the UK is a partial explanation of why there is less support for Zoos in the UK than many other countries, and that is part of the British psyche, even if it is subconsciously, we here are obviously all big fans of zoos so we are quite an echo chamber.
As a couple of examples which are some useful clues, according to this recent poll 75% of the British public are against large animals in Zoos More than 75% of British public are against large animals in zoos and another poll nearly a quarter of Brits believe Zoos should be banned entirely A quarter of the British public say zoos should be banned | YouGov
Lafone
Well-Known Member
While both those links are interesting, neither correlate activism with funding or visit numbers.
71% of the people in your second poll visited zoos regularly and 58% liked their work on conservation. Rather different from the headline once you read the other stats.
I think this thread and the other where a poster is describing a coming 'zoomageddon' because some people don't share their views on zoos are quite similar - people not liking what you like simply isn't a crisis.
Your thread was on people not funding zoos and you drew a direct link to activism. That's great as an opinion, but there's no actual evidence for it.
The first of these surveys doesn’t provide any data except the headline-grabbing percentages, followed by standard quotes from Born Free. Hardly reliable.
The second shows the majority of people who were surveyed support zoos and agree they contribute to conservation.
cerperal
Well-Known Member
You are conflating less support with less foot traffic and I simply don't think that is correct. We've been meandering on in this thread about the multitude of causes for one UK zoo specifically having fewer visitors than contemporaries on the continent and not once has the UK being anti-zoo cropped up, simply because it is a minute and can be disregarded as an occasionally loud minority. I think the fact Chester isn't even in a major city (close to, yes) and yet has around 2 million (and increasing) visitors, Longleat having over a million pre-covid and increasing yearly since despite being in the middle of nowhere of Darkest Wiltshire, and Colchester being in, well, Colchester and having over a million yearly goes to show that zoos are not unpopular in this country. In fact, I would argue they are a staple of culture in many ways. The fact most schools ship children off to them once a year to fondle various herps and gawk at giraffes is pretty good evidence of that.
There seems to be a bigger emphasis on smaller local collections in much of the country, which makes sense given the way this country is set up. Admittedly a very specific example but I think a fitting one: the Isle of Wight zoos, Wildheart and Amazon World, aren't generally tourist destinations. And yet they are incredibly popular with locals. Certainly they won't be winning any awards for foot traffic, but if the logic is applied to every zoological collection in the country I would be surprised if the pattern wasn't similar, in that people who visit zoos tend to visit one particular one fairly often.
Aside from those YouGov titles being hideously misleading (there's something new), Born Free are far from trustworthy and are far from a neutral party on the matter. I would imagine their polling consisted of emailing members. And how are they defining large animal? Big cat? Bear? Elephant? American tourist? As for the second poll - I suppose "75% of Britons in favour of zoos" doesn't make for quite as snappy a title, does it?
Precisely. It's a concerning trend nowadays, probably exacerbated by online communities that consist of people purely with the same views as each other. People have different opinions, some people are more militant in those than others. And most just don't care enough to get sucked into the debate when they don't have to and would quite like to watch their favourite animals on a nice sunny day at the zoo in peace.
GeeZee
Well-Known Member
I wouldn’t go as far to describe a Zoomageddon (reminds me of during Covid there were concerns that Zoos may have to shut for good - and this didn’t happen apart from a few such as Bristol and South Lakes, but I think in those cases that was inevitable anyway) , I’m merely saying one of the reasons why UK zoos are perhaps not as successful as some of their counterparts abroad is because of the strong and established activist lobby which is rather unique to the UK.
There are other reasons too, of course - but I think based on the evidence it is reasonable to suggest that these groups are more prevalent in the UK, and further to what we have been discussing, this may be a reason as to why there is less support for UK zoos whether that be financially (BZP as an example) or in terms of visitor numbers (London v Berlin Zoo as an example).
Visitor numbers aren’t a sole indicator of a Zoos success (or not) but they do offer a clue. I’m pretty sure overall UK Zoo attendance has dropped in general In recent decades. I do own a number of old annual reports from various Zoos, I’ll have to have a look and see if I have any figures.
Last edited: