Worst UK Zoos
- Thread starter willtheman45
- Start date
I must say that I actually disagree with most of snowleopards comments.
I think shaldon is nice little zoo and didn't belong on that list - but then so did most others. But I'd also disagree with america having many better zoos then us and that britain has so few "world class" zoos. Firstly I'm having issues with the idea of world class and am feeling that it has a different meaning to "Good zoo." One that is more concerned with flashy finish then actual good practice. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot more white tigers in american zoos for a start, and the education is just not at the same level, with them being afraid to tackle topics like evolution, instead concentrating on dubious "animal ambassador" schemes.
We do have a worrying number of poor small zoos, but I think that it's more likely that because britain is so small that they recieve more attention on here then a little petting zoo in some quiet part of texas would. Our big boys (chester, bristol, london, paignton, marwell) can stand along with the best of them in the US even if we don't have air conditioning on pride rock.
I can't comment on the aspinal parks as I've never been, but from photos they don't look that amazing.
I think shaldon is nice little zoo and didn't belong on that list - but then so did most others. But I'd also disagree with america having many better zoos then us and that britain has so few "world class" zoos. Firstly I'm having issues with the idea of world class and am feeling that it has a different meaning to "Good zoo." One that is more concerned with flashy finish then actual good practice. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot more white tigers in american zoos for a start, and the education is just not at the same level, with them being afraid to tackle topics like evolution, instead concentrating on dubious "animal ambassador" schemes.
We do have a worrying number of poor small zoos, but I think that it's more likely that because britain is so small that they recieve more attention on here then a little petting zoo in some quiet part of texas would. Our big boys (chester, bristol, london, paignton, marwell) can stand along with the best of them in the US even if we don't have air conditioning on pride rock.
I can't comment on the aspinal parks as I've never been, but from photos they don't look that amazing.
I do not know what is on your American top 20 list but I would rate Whipsnade (your number 6) higher than I would rate Philadelphia zoo or the National zoo (all 3 zoos which I have been to at least once a year for the last 7 years). Therefore applying logic if either of these zoo make your top twenty, there would be at least 6 UK zoos that would make it into the list. I'm a member of the Bronx zoo and I find it very very over rated. Congo is a world class exhibit no doubt, jungleworld is good but the species which are exhibited there have been eroded over time, the loss of proboscus monkeys, bear cat and the gharial weakened the exhibit and having gibbons and bats in the final exhibit are totally wasted and rarely seen. The asian monorail at the bronx is very similar to the train ride at Whipsnade with virtually the same species on view, tiger mountain no better than the lion and tiger exhibits at whipsnade either, although their enrichment sessions are novel. The sealion exhibit is no better than than in many UK zoos. I was at the bronx this past weekend and the monkey house was half empty with garbage bags stuck over the remaining windows, the reptile house had peeling paint and leaks all over the place and has nowhere near the diversity of species that London zoo has and of course the world of darkness has been permanently closed. The new hyena exhibit is simply the old cheetah exhibit, while the new aardvark exhibit is really nice I admit, but not a world beater. The zoo I always wanted to visit was San Diego as everyone seems to rate it highly. When I finally got to go it was very good, but I came away disappointed, I was so expecting to be blown away by every exhibit there and despite it having some of the best zoo exhibits I have ever seen, it was marred by some of the poorer exhibits that took the gloss of those good ones. The Giant Panda exhibit was average at best and the enclousures for the hoofstock and some of the bears was very basic as was the reptile exhibit. I haven't been to Howletts or Port Lymphe zoo for about ten years (but I have been, so therefore am not basing my experience on the zoochat gallery) but they would certainly come lower in my list than Colchester zoo, despite its over reliance on fake rock it has some truly great exhibits and is zooming forward in the right direction and I think would certainly make it to my top ten zoos of all time, along with Chester and Whipsnade. The bronx zoo may not make my top ten zoo list (congo would make my top ten exhibits list though) and Philldelphia and the National zoo wouldn't make that list either.
Sorry about the mix up its Silver Foxes not Corsac Foxes but your right the enclosure they have is probably one of the finest Fox enclosures in the country, Dartmoor seems to be getting better step by step with the new Lynx enclosure which looks good aswell as moving the Coati's and several other species, Its a very promising collection 
Howletts completely overwelmed me too its now my favourite along with all the Aspinall methods etc its a very special place to me,
Sorry to say this but maybe we should get to the point of this thread what do we think is one of the poorer UK zoos and what could be done to improve the place perhaps, lets not go on about the difference of what is a good zoo because this isnt the thread for it even if you havent seen the zoos yourself.
Howletts completely overwelmed me too its now my favourite along with all the Aspinall methods etc its a very special place to me,
Sorry to say this but maybe we should get to the point of this thread what do we think is one of the poorer UK zoos and what could be done to improve the place perhaps, lets not go on about the difference of what is a good zoo because this isnt the thread for it even if you havent seen the zoos yourself.
easytigger
Well-Known Member
The thing with british zoos is we operate with no state funding, what revenue we generate through ticket sales, adoption, shop sales, food and drink, corporate sponsorship, fund raising, crazy golf, fish feeders etc etc is what we we have to operate on.
This therefore affects the exhibits that any zoo can afford to create as we can't in most cases get any funding, even from the lottery. So therefore its highly unlikely we will have imersion exhibits that are the current fad suddenly become rampant in the UK zoo community.
We are in a transisition from old style designs to new facilities and this is taking time, and money in all zoos, look at bristol now, to bristol 15 years ago, totally different place, gone are the big animals in small enclosures, instead they are maximising the space available to them.
What I detest more then anything are window dressed enclosures, that are landscaped and planted out really well and then when you look closer you see that the animals are hot wired (or other 'invisible' technique) into a fraction of the space that it first appears.
Finding middle ground is always going to be difficult, there is an arguement for trying to educate zoo visitors perhaps by saying that by keeping these animals in a cage style design, albeit themed with windows, its safer and its extra space they have as opposed to ha-ha's and moats being used, and they can have 24-7 access to their enclosure.
Will we be able to rival the facilities in the US, no probably not when it comes to the big boys, but zoo directors and managers will continue to develop their facilities to the best of their budgetary abilities.
Yes there are some shocking zoo's in the uk that should be closed down immediatley, and there are others that with time and investment are turning themselves around, and in these cases they have a lot to do with not much money to do it with, but they are getting there, slowly!
This therefore affects the exhibits that any zoo can afford to create as we can't in most cases get any funding, even from the lottery. So therefore its highly unlikely we will have imersion exhibits that are the current fad suddenly become rampant in the UK zoo community.
We are in a transisition from old style designs to new facilities and this is taking time, and money in all zoos, look at bristol now, to bristol 15 years ago, totally different place, gone are the big animals in small enclosures, instead they are maximising the space available to them.
What I detest more then anything are window dressed enclosures, that are landscaped and planted out really well and then when you look closer you see that the animals are hot wired (or other 'invisible' technique) into a fraction of the space that it first appears.
Finding middle ground is always going to be difficult, there is an arguement for trying to educate zoo visitors perhaps by saying that by keeping these animals in a cage style design, albeit themed with windows, its safer and its extra space they have as opposed to ha-ha's and moats being used, and they can have 24-7 access to their enclosure.
Will we be able to rival the facilities in the US, no probably not when it comes to the big boys, but zoo directors and managers will continue to develop their facilities to the best of their budgetary abilities.
Yes there are some shocking zoo's in the uk that should be closed down immediatley, and there are others that with time and investment are turning themselves around, and in these cases they have a lot to do with not much money to do it with, but they are getting there, slowly!
Seconded, couldn't have worded that better myself. And you're right about most of the UK zoos being charities with no help from the government etc. Is that the case in the US?
Most US zoos get some level of government funding, although certainly far less than in the past, and declining. But some of the US facilities that consistently demonstrate the best exhibit design get nothing from government (Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Monterey Bay Aquarium). San Diego is another institution that does a lot with almost no government subsidy or capital support. So the lack of government funding is no excuse for the shoddy and amateurish design so vigorously defended by some here as being "good for animals" and "not wasting money on window-dressing."
easytigger
Well-Known Member
Thank you for the clarification, with the exception of a handful of zoos attatched to theme parks and other facilities (which still have to earn their keep as it were) all british zoos are self sufficient as i have already mentioned, even Howletts and Port Lympne no longer have the finances of the late john aspinalls casino's to keep them going.
I'm not saying that themeing an area doesn't have a role to play in making a good enclosure, we are after all tourist attractions, and we have to give something i.e. a great day out in return for them parting with their hard earned cash.
Making an enclosure as natural as possible is essential, and i have cringed at some of the examples I have seen recently (RSCC, Colchesters new orang enclosure and so on) but surely hot wiring animals on show is wrong? along with training animals to sit by windows for a 'guest experience'.
I'm going to make a claim that all of our zoos are world class facilities, because their not, we are behind a lot of european collections (that recieve state funding) and behind plenty of US collections.
We have some good zoo's we can be very proud of, and we have bad zoos that we are (or at least should be) ashamed of, in the end it will be survival of the fittest and best. The good zoo's will continue to thrive and the bad zoos will fail (on a seperate thread its mentioned that borth animalarium is up for sale for a stupid amount of money several hundred thousand pounds, which is laughable as its a dump!)
_kapi__97
Member
dont diss south lakes and shaldon, sure some of those you have named are bad but not
south lakes,its ground braking and a first in uk history, amazing
and shaldon is beautifull and has used its space well, DONT DISS SHALDON
Dartmoor, whats up with it
and Borth Is a Rescue, some enclosures were bad but for what they stood for it was good
what ever
Excuse me, but how is South Lakes amazing for attemping some potentially deadly mixes and falsely claiming to be the first to innovate tiger feeds?
What is it a first in UK history for?
taun
Well-Known Member
Its been a number of years since I visited South Lakes so I dont partically remember that much but is it the quality of enclosures that makes South Lakes a poor zoo in several peoples opinions or is it just management. For instance if the park seperated the bizzare mixed exhibits (such as removing Tapirs, Otters and whatever else is in there out of the Bear enclosure), took some control over the free range Lemurs and whatever else is running havoc, made some improvements with the walkways and stopped boasting about their non-existant uniqueness would the park be considered a perfectly fine zoo or do the problems run deeper than this?
if your on about 'first uk zoo soley about endangered species' your wrong, Marwell and Aspinall beat you to it!
Last edited:
Where on earth did you get that from (and, incidentally, neither of the collections you mentioned were the first to see the importance in captive breeding, nor are they dedicated "soley" to conserving endangered species)?
must say the worst zoo for me was molehall and im glad it closed as the enclosures were horrid! when i was 11 i remember going for the first time and i took photos of the otters and was so sicked i wanted to "tell the rspca" lol
went back before it closed and nothing had changed over all the years, poor chimps enclosure and other primate enclosures looked like they were going to fall down.
to make things worse people were teasing the animals (poking chimps with sticks), i hate this most of all!
stu
went back before it closed and nothing had changed over all the years, poor chimps enclosure and other primate enclosures looked like they were going to fall down.
to make things worse people were teasing the animals (poking chimps with sticks), i hate this most of all!
stu
While they were not the first to see the importance in captive breeding, it has been stated both in the Story So Far and in John Knowles' autobiography that Marwell was set up for the purposes of conserving endangered species, kick started in the psyche by an experience with elephant/human conflict in Sri Lanka and then initiated after meeting the owner of the two Boston zoos. Whether it's the case with Aspinall, I don't have a source to back it up.
johnstoni
Well-Known Member
Marwell has always held many 'park' species that are of no conservation value, although the majority of the collection is focused on rare species. The aspinall parks are similar, and while there are possibly fewer 'common' species at Howletts and Port Lympne, the collection you must surely albeit unknowingly be referring to as pioneering conservation in its truest form is Jersey Zoo, at least for the UK.
