If we take the big city/town zoos & safari parks out of the equation should the local to each other smaller collections co operate more. What I mean is these collections that are local to each other are competing for the same entrance fees so should they agree say by county that if one collection say has tigers the other collection can have lions.Would this possibly lead to some species moving to other collections out of the county and giving each zoo a more varied stock.
Should the smaller collections co operate more closely ?
- Thread starter garyjp
- Start date
This is an interesting idea but what counts as a small zoo and what counts as a big zoo? Some collections regarded as some of the best are much smaller than others and would probably not like to be lumped in the same category. About lions and tigers, most zoos already have both and they are major ABC animals especially for small zoos which don't have space for large ungulates.
Smaller zoos rely on big carnivores, great apes and pinnipeds while larger zoos have elephants, rhinos and giraffes etc. Also most ordinary people won't travel far to go for a day out at the zoo and they are going to want to see ABC species, so just having lions won't do if the zoo is small. They are going to want tigers too most likely. Many may say having the same similar animals is boring and unvaried but it's these species which allow zoos to get money to do all the great conservation work they do.
Chester Zoo actually asked their visitors to vote which animal 'makes them want to visit the zoo' and put it in a book called 'Our Unexpected Zoo' which I think is updated annualy but I'm not sure. My copy is from a couple of years ago and the top 10 goes as follows (number 1 is the most voted):
Yes, collections should try to be as varied as possible species wise but they also need ABC species, no matter the size as that is where the real money comes from.
Smaller zoos rely on big carnivores, great apes and pinnipeds while larger zoos have elephants, rhinos and giraffes etc. Also most ordinary people won't travel far to go for a day out at the zoo and they are going to want to see ABC species, so just having lions won't do if the zoo is small. They are going to want tigers too most likely. Many may say having the same similar animals is boring and unvaried but it's these species which allow zoos to get money to do all the great conservation work they do.
Chester Zoo actually asked their visitors to vote which animal 'makes them want to visit the zoo' and put it in a book called 'Our Unexpected Zoo' which I think is updated annualy but I'm not sure. My copy is from a couple of years ago and the top 10 goes as follows (number 1 is the most voted):
- Rhinos
- Elephants
- Giraffes
- Lions
- Tigers
- Penguins
- Meerkats
- Butterflies
- Red Pandas
- Chimpanzees
Yes, collections should try to be as varied as possible species wise but they also need ABC species, no matter the size as that is where the real money comes from.
I'm not sure this delineation holds true. I've always thought as keeping either great apes and pinnipeds (Sea Life centres and similar aside) as being a marker of a large(r) zoo given they're not cheap to house/keep and are beyond the finances of "small(er) zoos". That said there are exceptions -Bristol has both of them and I'd still class it as a small zoo. Beyond that, and perhaps Wingham, though I'm struggling to think of anywhere that has great apes or pinnipeds which I'd class as a small zoo.
I'd agree with that though -it would seem most zoos aspire to keeping either Lions or Tigers as that's what Joe Public wants to see (inevitably doing nothing). If you stop to think about it, Twycross strangely (as usual) aside, you're getting down to a very small collection if you're looking for the largest UK zoo (Amazona?) without either Lions or Tigers
Large ungulates though is potentially a good threshold -I'd struggle to argue anywhere keeping giraffes is not a large zoo. Then again, I think the definition needs fine tuning a little (perhaps an emphasis on the plural) as Linton and Paradise park keep zebras and Camels and I wouldn't class either as a large zoo).
With the exception of Wild Place perhaps
There's always one.
This definition thing is hard work.
[QUOTE="This is an interesting idea but what counts as a small zoo and what counts as a big zoo?"/QUOTE]
[QUOTE="That said there are exceptions -Bristol has both of them and I'd still class it as a small zoo. Beyond that, and perhaps Wingham, though I'm struggling to think of anywhere that has great apes or pinnipeds which I'd class as a small zoo."/QUOTE]
Welsh Mountain Zoo, perhaps?
Anywho, I'd argue the simpler categorisation of 'small vs. large zoo' based on presence of ABC zoos isn't quite right - there's a much wider 'middle' category that fuzzies things up a bit. For example, though Bristol may be geographically rather small city zoo, thereby physically denying it the opportunity to exhibit more of the larger, charismatic megafauna (at least on their main site!), their financials and annual turnover, and, I think important to note, husbandry experience and degree of speciality puts them towards the 'middle-larger' end of the spectrum. I actually think that latter part is possibly a better metric to divvy up zoos in this sense (i.e. the more dedicated departments on separate taxa, the 'bigger' the zoo), regardless to some extent of what actual species are kept.
By and large, the smallest zoos have a single collective group of keepers charged with managing all their stock. Get a little bigger and you begin seeing a split between 'mammals', 'birds' and 'herps/inverts/small things in general'. Bigger still and the 'mammals' get split up into 'large' and 'small / primates' (à la Cotswold Wildlife Park), and the biggest zoos, at considerable cost for the additional staff expertise, speciality and upkeep costs, begin to have departments split into specific 'insect', 'fish', 'pachyderm' groups etc. ZSL and Chester are the obvious 'big' players here, but I'd argue Bristol is likewise more towards that end given their range of dedicated houses, and with livestock split across two sites.
In short, perhaps a better metric to define a 'bigger' zoo may be less about having rhinos, and more about whether they have a decent-sized aquarium or not. Or something!
EDIT: Hmmm, I can't seem to get the hang of the quoting formatting... !
[QUOTE="That said there are exceptions -Bristol has both of them and I'd still class it as a small zoo. Beyond that, and perhaps Wingham, though I'm struggling to think of anywhere that has great apes or pinnipeds which I'd class as a small zoo."/QUOTE]
Welsh Mountain Zoo, perhaps?
Anywho, I'd argue the simpler categorisation of 'small vs. large zoo' based on presence of ABC zoos isn't quite right - there's a much wider 'middle' category that fuzzies things up a bit. For example, though Bristol may be geographically rather small city zoo, thereby physically denying it the opportunity to exhibit more of the larger, charismatic megafauna (at least on their main site!), their financials and annual turnover, and, I think important to note, husbandry experience and degree of speciality puts them towards the 'middle-larger' end of the spectrum. I actually think that latter part is possibly a better metric to divvy up zoos in this sense (i.e. the more dedicated departments on separate taxa, the 'bigger' the zoo), regardless to some extent of what actual species are kept.
By and large, the smallest zoos have a single collective group of keepers charged with managing all their stock. Get a little bigger and you begin seeing a split between 'mammals', 'birds' and 'herps/inverts/small things in general'. Bigger still and the 'mammals' get split up into 'large' and 'small / primates' (à la Cotswold Wildlife Park), and the biggest zoos, at considerable cost for the additional staff expertise, speciality and upkeep costs, begin to have departments split into specific 'insect', 'fish', 'pachyderm' groups etc. ZSL and Chester are the obvious 'big' players here, but I'd argue Bristol is likewise more towards that end given their range of dedicated houses, and with livestock split across two sites.
In short, perhaps a better metric to define a 'bigger' zoo may be less about having rhinos, and more about whether they have a decent-sized aquarium or not. Or something!
EDIT: Hmmm, I can't seem to get the hang of the quoting formatting... !
I see what you're saying but I'd still class Bristol as a very good small zoo (arguably the very best small zoo in the UK) but with big visitor numbers and resources.
Nice exception point re Welsh Mountain Zoo though -maybe this size thing's about large ungulates (excepting Wild Place
) after all. 
Nice exception point re Welsh Mountain Zoo though -maybe this size thing's about large ungulates (excepting Wild Place
) after all. I think it was Gerald Durrell (it usually is ) who wrote that you couldn't get zoos to agree on a standard design of bucket. In which case the chances of them agreeing a collective collections policy seems unlikely.
) who wrote that you couldn't get zoos to agree on a standard design of bucket. In which case the chances of them agreeing a collective collections policy seems unlikely.I think it was Gerald Durrell (it usually is
I can relate to this and it’s so true! Within my current role I work with a portfolio of 75 different organisations from small independents to multi-million nationals, and trying to get them all to agree on absolutely anything is near on impossible, as all have different budgets, different challenges, different specialties, different structures, differnet resources, different material assets, different priorities and so on . . . I would imagine it’s quite the same with zoos.
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
I think the most sensible definition of size of zoo I've seen proposed on ZooChat is by how long it takes to 'do' the zoo. This allows Bristol to rise appropriately higher than it might geographically and also knocks some larger zoos down a little. The problem then becomes that visit times are so individual, but as long as people view the whole collection with some degree of interest you can find relative agreement.
Just to keep this discussion going - perhaps just to re define the size issue . Exclude all zoos that are in a city or large town and exclude safari parks.People have to drive to get to safari parks and i suppose it is getting those people to drive to the other collections.Should perhaps Zoos have a buddy system then, that they agree the nearest zoo to them does not have the same species but on a technicality could slightly get away with it. Zoo A had African Lions Zoo B has Asiatic Lions - public gets to see Lions same goes with tigers,penguins ,leopards,monkeys etc.both Zoos can trade with any other zoo they wish to just not replicate the same species in their buddy system.
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
There are very few people who care if the lion they are looking at is Asian or African. Unless little Sally really gets a hankering to see rhinos or something I don't think species held is in any way a factor for the vast majority of visitors.
littleRedPanda
Well-Known Member
A lot of people don't care/know the difference between tigers either; a lady the other day declared that because they are white, Hamerton's white tigers are Siberian because it snows there.
Exactly - i agree with both above posters . So everybody could be potentially happy - daytrippers as they have seen Lions ,hobbyists as they have seen a particular species and would encourage them to go to Zoo B for instance.
I dunno I'm just kicking round an idea really
I dunno I'm just kicking round an idea really
I think we could start a thread most stupidest comments overheard at the Zoo.
I’m sure this already exists somewhere!
Hasn't my overhear of somebody telling their child that the binturong they were looking at was a flamingo rather killed off all rivals?
Hasn't my overhear of somebody telling their child that the binturong they were looking at was a flamingo rather killed off all rivals?
Well, it would be pretty hard to beat!
