Roller coaster in zoos

LiSom

LiSom

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
I have visit a few zoos in Europe with one or more roller coaster such as Loro Parque and Kolmarden. I personally have no problem with it as long as they are located in an area that doesn't affect animal enclosures (although I would definitely prefer that space to be use for animals) but I know some people don't agree with having roller coaster in zoos for different reasons so what is your opinion on this?
 
I don't like it because it drives the price of the zoo way up. Columbus Zoo in Ohio does a good job with their amusement park, it's connected but a separate purchase. I really want to see the cheetah exhibit at Busch Gardens Tampa, for example, but it's like $80 just to walk in the door (and an additional purchase to do a cheetah tour, the safari tour, etc.)
 
I can understand why they might be financially beneficial, but I don't think having rollercoasters around helps with the "zoos are for education not entertainment" narrative.

The way I see it, they're a waste of space, and they increase noise pollution, and therefore potentially stress in the animals.
 
equidae said:
I can understand why they might be financially beneficial, but I don't think having rollercoasters around helps with the "zoos are for education not entertainment" narrative.

The way I see it, they're a waste of space, and they increase noise pollution, and therefore potentially stress in the animals.
Click to expand...

It depends where the emphasis is, really. If you look at it the other way - put the rides first - it's a theme park with a much more educational message.
 
I find that if a zoo has enough space to accommodate both rides and animals separately, a small amusement area can have a profound financial impact. At the end of the day, the majority of zoos try their hardest to bring more money in to ultimately be able to better fund conservation. And, if there is more to do for smaller children or just people in general, then more people are likely to come and spend their money. My local park does it quite well, except I do think they should try to maintain/update the rides somewhat. Although I totally get that in some places, the impact of screaming guests and general noise pollution isn't adequately considered.
 
I have never visited a zoo with rollercoasters, but it sounds very cash-grabby in my opinion. I'm sure there are other ways zoos can bring in more money without having to resort to mindless entertainment that's in a place meant for something entirely different and not correlated at all. And your point op about taking away spaces is very true I think... even if it isn't large or anything I just think they could use it for things that benefit the animals more...I don't know. I sound like a broken record.
 
I don't really mind it, but when it's a traditional zoo with a roller coaster it is usually a children's roller coaster (like Tampa). I also separate these from animal theme parks like Animal Kingdom and the SeaWorld properties (including Busch Gardens Tampa).

Busch Gardens Tampa even had one of the roller coasters run through one of the paddocks.
 
Both the Indianapolis zoo and Wildlife World in Arizona have small-scale family roller coasters. The only zoo I've been to while the coasters were actually operational was Tampa, which also had a log flume ride running.

I think they are mostly acceptable to have in certain zoos. They are a bit too commercial and entertainment oriented for my taste, but as long as they help with funding and do not detract from other aspects of the zoo, I think they are fine.
 
Taman Safari and Batu Secret Zoo had an entire amusement arena, completely separate from the animal sections, of course.

I think they worked quite well as amusement parks go. Always love visited them with my family.
 
I respect everyone's opinion, but I'm definitely against any sort of rides in zoos besides train/tram rides that take you to see animals. Modern zoos and aquariums should be centers for conservation education and scientific research, not theme parks. (*cough cough SeaWorld cough cough*). The presence of rides, in my opinion, makes the general public see the animals in the zoo as just there to entertain them in the same way as the rides. Not that going to the zoo should be boring- a good zoo is able to create engaging, enjoyable exhibits that entertain while educating. I'd be interested to see how much people learn at a place like Disney's Animal Kingdom or Busch Gardens vs. a traditional zoo. Plus, spending money on constructing and maintaining rides takes funds away from conservation and animal care. One exception I would make is for historic carousels. At least here in the U.S. a lot of zoos have historic wooden carousels that are made with really fine craftsmanship and represent a part of the zoo's history. I wouldn't automatically condemn a zoo for having roller coasters or other rides, but I definitely would prefer it if they didn't.
 
PantheraLeoMelanochaita said:
I respect everyone's opinion, but I'm definitely against any sort of rides in zoos besides train/tram rides that take you to see animals. Modern zoos and aquariums should be centers for conservation education and scientific research, not theme parks. (*cough cough SeaWorld cough cough*). The presence of rides, in my opinion, makes the general public see the animals in the zoo as just there to entertain them in the same way as the rides. Not that going to the zoo should be boring- a good zoo is able to create engaging, enjoyable exhibits that entertain while educating. I'd be interested to see how much people learn at a place like Disney's Animal Kingdom or Busch Gardens vs. a traditional zoo. Plus, spending money on constructing and maintaining rides takes funds away from conservation and animal care. One exception I would make is for historic carousels. At least here in the U.S. a lot of zoos have historic wooden carousels that are made with really fine craftsmanship and represent a part of the zoo's history. I wouldn't automatically condemn a zoo for having roller coasters or other rides, but I definitely would prefer it if they didn't.
Click to expand...
My guess is that the average guest learns about the same amount at either type of zoo - that is to say, very little. That would be an interesting study though.
 
TinoPup said:
I don't like it because it drives the price of the zoo way up. Columbus Zoo in Ohio does a good job with their amusement park, it's connected but a separate purchase. I really want to see the cheetah exhibit at Busch Gardens Tampa, for example, but it's like $80 just to walk in the door (and an additional purchase to do a cheetah tour, the safari tour, etc.)
Click to expand...
I'm in agreement with this perspective.

Keeping the amusement rides separate from the zoo, with distinct entry fees, is a way to reap the benefits of additional revenue while avoiding the pitfall of reducing the zoo itself to an amusement park. I think it's the perfect marriage, imo
 
In the Netherlands, there's a zoo called Wildlands. In my opinion it's one of the best zoos in the Netherlands, but by a lot of visitors and zoo people it's considered one of the worst. Partially because it's the replacement of a beloved zoo that was shut down and people are nostalgic, but partially also because the previous owner described it as "not a zoo, but an adventure park".
Which essentially means nothing. It's still a zoo, it just has more theming and some attractions. The most controversial of which, and the most recent of the attractions, being a rollercoaster.

Now, I'm not gonna defend all rollercoasters in zoos, but I am gonna defend this one. Because it's actually quite well-done.

Rollercoaster "tweestryd" is built on the outskirts of the park, near the parking lot and on the other side of a service road. AKA: a place that would not make for a great location for an animal enclosure. On top of that, the rollercoaster has a mining theme, and is surrounded by education on how the mining industry has displaced a lot of animals and people, and is exploiting said people for cheap labour under very bad working conditions.

I've seen Wildlands being described as a disgrace by both zoo enthusiasts and zookeepers alike, and I think it's absolutely undeserved.

I think Wildlands is one of the only zoos who does a rollercoaster well, by pairing it with education and keeping it away from the animals (thus keeping the noise down for the main zoo)
 
I think rides in zoo's should only be allowed if the animals are able to ride them also. I am not stupid and I know that having dangerous animals on a rollercoaster could endanger humans who are also riding so perhaps the animals could only ride the rollercoaster once the human guests have gone home.
 
Patrick Shepherd said:
I think rides in zoo's should only be allowed if the animals are able to ride them also. I am not stupid and I know that having dangerous animals on a rollercoaster could endanger humans who are also riding so perhaps the animals could only ride the rollercoaster once the human guests have gone home.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine seat restraints are able to carry over across species. There is also the *slight* concern about animal welfare... :p
 
PantheraLeoMelanochaita said:
The presence of rides, in my opinion, makes the general public see the animals in the zoo as just there to entertain them in the same way as the rides.
Click to expand...
That's a very interesting point; does the presence of amusement park elements subconciously undermine the psychological conception of zoos as serious institutions by their visitors? As far as I know, museums, botanical gardens etc. do not sport roller coasters, and nobody seems to miss them there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top