Zoos that don't give names to their animals

Haliaeetus

Haliaeetus

Well-Known Member
Recently the Thoiry Zoo (France), that has recently changed its brand name for WOW : World of Wilds Safari Thoiry (it's indeed its current official name now), has announced that it will stop to give names to its animals.

Fini les winny l’ourson ou simba le lion à Thoiry
(link in French language)

The reason publicly told is to avoid anthropomorphism and public confusion between wild animals and pets/domestic animals.

However, I don't know any example of such a decision, neither in France nor abroad. Do you know other parks that have adopted this practice, or used to do it in the past ?

The argument may be heard, but it remains heavily controversial in my opinion, because :
1) naming the animals creates a positive feeling for the public, and a "personal" bond with the animals under the zoo's care, and their wild counterparts ; the animals, and the symbolism they carry, belong for ages to the human imaginary, and the "names" given to them are part of this imaginary (as we can see in films, fantasy novels, mythologies...) ;
2) this usage isn't at all restricted to zoo animals, it is common in the wildlife sanctuaries, where there's the custom to name emblematic animals (mostly belonging to rare species or reintroduced animals), from the fallen lion Cecil in Zimbabwe to the venerated Wisdom, the oldest albatross of the Pacific (I may add many other examples) ; it exists also unofficially among birdwatcher and wildlife observer comunities ;
3) the opponents of animal naming argue against a "childish" usage (as to say "a Nemo" for a clownfish or "a Simba" for a lion as children/parents may say sometimes...) they are worried to feel widespread ; however I have at least one example of a fictional name of a single animal (in a litterature piece) that has completely evicted the former generic name of its species since the Middle Ages in French language (the "renard" [fox], indeed a character of the tale book "Le Roman de Renart", that has replaced the old name "goupil", the latter remaining only in dialects or litterary language).

Curiously the source article (the only without paywall) about this proposal (that may look like an animal activist proposal) comes from "Le Chasseur français", that is a semi-official website of the hunting lobby in France, and may illustrate a good example of controversy à fronts renversés, as we say in French.
 
Haliaeetus said:
Recently the Thoiry Zoo (France), that has recently changed its brand name for WOW : World of Wilds Safari Thoiry (it's indeed its current official name now), has announced that it will stop to give names to its animals.

Fini les winny l’ourson ou simba le lion à Thoiry
(link in French language)

The reason publicly told is to avoid anthropomorphism and public confusion between wild animals and pets/domestic animals.

However, I don't know any example of such a decision, neither in France nor abroad. Do you know other parks that have adopted this practice, or used to do it in the past ?

The argument may be heard, but it remains heavily controversial in my opinion, because :
1) naming the animals creates a positive feeling for the public, and a "personal" bond with the animals under the zoo's care, and their wild counterparts ; the animals, and the symbolism they carry, belong for ages to the human imaginary, and the "names" given to them are part of this imaginary (as we can see in films, fantasy novels, mythologies...) ;
2) this usage isn't at all restricted to zoo animals, it is common in the wildlife sanctuaries, where there's the custom to name emblematic animals (mostly belonging to rare species or reintroduced animals), from the fallen lion Cecil in Zimbabwe to the venerated Wisdom, the oldest albatross of the Pacific (I may add many other examples) ; it exists also unofficially among birdwatcher and wildlife observer comunities ;
3) the opponents of animal naming argue against a "childish" usage (as to say "a Nemo" for a clownfish or "a Simba" for a lion as children/parents may say sometimes...) they are worried to feel widespread ; however I have at least one example of a fictional name of a single animal (in a litterature piece) that has completely evicted the former generic name of its species since the Middle Ages in French language (the "renard" [fox], indeed a character of the tale book "Le Roman de Renart", that has replaced the old name "goupil", the latter remaining only in dialects or litterary language).

Curiously the source article (the only without paywall) about this proposal (that may look like an animal activist proposal) comes from "Le Chasseur français", that is a semi-official website of the hunting lobby in France, and may illustrate a good example of controversy à fronts renversés, as we say in French.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with you. Those familiar with Jane Goodall’s research on chimpanzees will know she assigned names to chimpanzees she observed (as an additional example of naming animals).

Zoos have their own identifiers which don’t require a name (microchip, ZIMS records etc). and that’s fine; but giving an animal a name without a doubt helps form a connection between them and the public. The stars of any zoo (usually elephants, big cats, bears and great apes) are known by name by many people (and those who don’t often want to know it).

Anthropomorphism is inevitable amongst the general public. I see it applied to unnamed species e.g. clownfish (“Oh look it’s Nemo”) equally as readily as it’s applied to named individuals.
 
In terms of what is important regarding the running of the zoo, the welfare of animals, and the conservation of species is of course the accession number and, where applicable, the studbook number of the animal concerned. ZIMS users (most zoos today) are slowly moving towards a universal number which will not change when animals are transferred. There is no need for names as such in this regard. Having said that, there is a provision within ZIMS for recording names.

There are three contexts in which names are used:

1. Pet names given to animals by keepers. Observant visitors sometimes pick these up.
2. Marketing names, mostly for more prominent animals.
3. Training names, used to convey instructions. Keepers usually try and keep these a secret, as inappropriate use can reverse training or in some instances be dangerous for the keepers.

Sometimes the same name is used for the pet name and marketing name, or for the pet name and the training name, but I've never heard the same name used for all three.

Obviously, names in categories 1 and 2 often change when animals are transferred between zoos, or sometimes even with new keepers. Training names are unlikely to change, for obvious reasons.

I'm guessing the zoo is talking about no longer using marketing names. In which case the marketing department must be pulling it's hair out. People do relate to animal names, and when I give tours (not so often today) what is the animals name is the most common question. I used to make a name up on the spot for most of them. Another observation is that people would ask the names of animals kept as individuals or pairs, but rarely for animals kept in larger groups.

It is important that anthropomorphic devices like names do not stand in the way of important conservation messages, but used carefully they can help create a connection.
 
Thoiry Zoo changing its name (it's actually Worlds of Wild) is an awful decision. 'WOW' is a ridiculous title and what was wrong with plain old Thoiry Zoo? It reminds me of the upcoming Saint Louis Zoo WildCare Park, which will be a large safari-style zoo in the state of Missouri. 'WildCare' is a terrible name in my opinion, not really meaning anything in today's world.

On a separate note, naming animals can definitely create an important bond between visitors and captive creatures. Probably the most famous example in North American zoo history would be 'Shamu' the Killer Whale at the SeaWorld parks. For decades, basically every Orca in captivity was known as Shamu by everyone who stopped by a whale tank.
 
All zoos give names to most of their larger animals - it makes life of keepers and registrators much easier. Studbooks of hoofstock I saw for example have both numbers and names.

However new trend of zoos not publishing names of individual animals to public is getting more widespread. In Czechia, it is followed by Liberec, Ostrava, Olomouc, Hodonin and a few others. On the other hand, Prague, Zlin and Dvur Kralove still keep the same old policy - they dont want to give up using the "power of individual name" for marketing and propagation purposes.
 
Jana said:
However new trend of zoos not publishing names of individual animals to public is getting more widespread. In Czechia, it is followed by Liberec, Ostrava, Olomouc, Hodonin and a few others. On the other hand, Prague, Zlin and Dvur Kralove still keep the same old policy - they dont want to give up using the "power of individual name" for marketing and propagation purposes.
Click to expand...
Interesting that this is the direction European zoos are going. In the United States, zoo education has been moving in the opposite direction. Twenty years ago or so, there was a big push to not publicize animal names and avoid anthropomorphism like its the plague. Nowadays, many AZA zoos have moved in the opposite direction with their education departments- focusing more on fostering empathy for wildlife, and oftentimes relying on individual animals' stories in the process. Interestingly enough, Seattle Aquarium was one of the leaders in this shift, and there's a lot of really interesting stuff out there from the aquarium about how to build empathy with aquatic invertebrates, and how anthropomorphism can at times be a power for good.
 
It would be maybe wrong to say that this is a direction that "European zoos" are going. PR culture and zoo media content is fractured along language borders in Europe. Just because few Czech zoos decided to change their policy within last 5 years doesnt represent any meaningful trend yet.

All Czech zoos adopted usage of strong individual animals strories for education and PR purposes around year 2000 (or shortly before) - in the same way you are describing how AZA zoos´s education departments work today. Within short time, many formerly anonymous animals got their public names (from antelopes to tortoises or even some fish) and they started to appear on signage posts within zoo areals and in educational and media materials.

However, such anthropomorphism leads also to unhealthy attachment of some members of public to certain "pop idol" animals. Dealing with rabid fans is nuisance to zoo staff (I´ve heard some horror stories about harrasment done by Prague gorilla fans ) and I´m not surprised some zoos´ve had enough.
 
Last edited:
I take the view that naming animals increases visitor engagement and allows marketing departments to bring relevant stories to the public, stories which usually contain important conservation messages, in an engaging way.

Engagement with animals and conservation are parts of the key role zoos play.

As Neil mentioned above, empathy and engagement are important factors when encouraging people to take an interest in wildlife.

Knowing an animals name, or not, does not automatically lead to poor or positive behaviour.

It's just a tool, if it is used, allowing zoos to get messages out there. Removing it because of some elitist view of how people are 'allowed' to understand or relate to animals seems rather short sighted and sad to me.
 
Creating attachment between individual animals and the public does not really have a big purpose and can create some issues. In breeding programmes animals have to be constantly transferred between zoos so the strong bond that your public has with the loved individual has to be broken. I have already heard stories of zoos wanting to go against transfer recommendations because their nationally famous start has to go somewhere else. This brings unnecessary complications to running the breeding programme.
However, in this regard, I think most zoos in Europe have been doing some good work! While giving names to the animals, they stress that they take part in breeding programmes and that they have to be moved away to fulfil a "bigger" mission, which is to save their species.
Another big concern is when the animals must be euthanised, either for management or veterinarian reasons and killing your beloved star is a pill difficult to swallow for your visitors. PR-wise it is way more complicated to manage this than the benefits of promoting Tapir José or the Lioness Kumba. Just remember Marius' story from Copenhagen.

For education purposes, In my opinion, visitors need to learn about the preservation of species and biodiversity, not about José or Kumba. They need to understand the concept of species and ecosystem conservation not the story-telling of those individuals. I believe that only after this is well established is when you can give some space to let visitors know a bit about the individuals you have. However, building attachments for individuals is not of great use to anyone.
Nevertheless, animal stars are inevitable. Just remember Floquito de Nieve, Knut or Bokito among others. Some individuals will always stand out and be the attention of the crowds, but that should not be the goal of zoo animals. We live in a society where "famous names" are always fabricated in the name of entertainment and commercialisation. The time of zoos as such should be over. To see stars, characters or personalities, the zoo is not the right place. The Madame Tussauds seems more appropriate to me.
 
OkapiJohn said:
Creating attachment between individual animals and the public does not really have a big purpose and can create some issues.
Click to expand...

It has one big and important purpose - it generates money and goodwill for the zoo.

I´m volunteering (media work and adoptions) for a cat shelter. And rule number one that any other staff in any shelter would tell you too - you give a name to every single animal that very second it arrives through the gate. Please believe me that this is immensely important step that multiplies interest and generosity of donors and potential adopters. It works like magic.

I have no idea if silence about animal names will endanger or help zoos in future. I´m not for or against. I´m waiting to see how it will pan out for them.
 
Jana said:
It has one big and important purpose - it generates money and goodwill for the zoo.

I´m volunteering (media work and adoptions) for a cat shelter. And rule number one that any other staff in any shelter would tell you too - you give a name to every single animal that very second it arrives through the gate. Please believe me that this is immensely important step that multiplies interest and generosity of donors and potential adopters. It works like magic.

I have no idea if silence about animal names will endanger or help zoos in future. I´m not for or against. I´m waiting to see how it will pan out for them.
Click to expand...
What I stated cannot be applied to every individual animal and/or zoo of course. These are just general thoughts. In some instances, it can be useful, e.g. assisting in the explanation (also through family trees) of family or group structures that sometimes are very different from those of us humans.
But I am also not against or in favour. I just think it should not be the focus.
Actually, it would be interesting to do some real research on what visitors learn/change behaviours if you provide them with a lot of individual's information vs none at all.
 
Jana said:
It has one big and important purpose - it generates money and goodwill for the zoo.

I´m volunteering (media work and adoptions) for a cat shelter. And rule number one that any other staff in any shelter would tell you too - you give a name to every single animal that very second it arrives through the gate. Please believe me that this is immensely important step that multiplies interest and generosity of donors and potential adopters. It works like magic.

I have no idea if silence about animal names will endanger or help zoos in future. I´m not for or against. I´m waiting to see how it will pan out for them.
Click to expand...
Although I perfectly understand the purpose of that in an animal shelter. Zoos are quite not the same thing. The animal shelter you need to create empathy towards those individuals to save/help them in their dire situations. Zoos do the same, I would say, but with species. So that should be the focus, not the individuals. I remember at the aquarium where I worked everyone knew the name of the resident otters, but half of the visitors would still call them seals or dogs. So, what was the usefulness of their names??
 
OkapiJohn said:
For education purposes, In my opinion, visitors need to learn about the preservation of species and biodiversity, not about José or Kumba. They need to understand the concept of species and ecosystem conservation not the story-telling of those individuals
Click to expand...
The KAB model of behavior change (knowledge-attitude-behavior) seldom works in actually making people behave in environmentally-conscious ways. Just telling visitors facts about preserving species or the importance of biodiversity won't do anywhere near the benefit as establishing an emotional connection between visitors and animals will. Study after study have shown that emotional connections make people much more likely to remember something, and much more likely to change their behavior as a result too. How do you establish that emotional connection? You can get somewhere by talking about an animal's similarity to humans, but it is even more effective if you share the animal's name, and if relevant, their backstory. In many cases, this backstory can also be relevant to a conservation issue too- especially in cases where animals were non-releasable rehab animals and/or abandoned/confiscated pets.

OkapiJohn said:
Just remember Marius' story from Copenhagen.
Click to expand...
I think it's important to bring up, within this context, that much of the criticism and outrage over Marius' death did not come from those people in Copenhagen who knew the zoo and had any sort of connection to Marius- a lot of it came from the United States, United Kingdom, and other countries, where people wouldn't have had any clue who Marius was otherwise. With all due respect to both of them, neither Jack Hanna nor Terry Maple, as prominent directors of US zoos, had any business publicly criticizing an EAZA facility half way across the world. I don't think the name had anything to do with the outrage, more so just the fact that giraffes are a highly popular, charismatic megafauna.
 
Neil chace said:
The KAB model of behavior change (knowledge-attitude-behavior) seldom works in actually making people behave in environmentally-conscious ways. Just telling visitors facts about preserving species or the importance of biodiversity won't do anywhere near the benefit as establishing an emotional connection between visitors and animals will. Study after study have shown that emotional connections make people much more likely to remember something, and much more likely to change their behavior as a result too. How do you establish that emotional connection? You can get somewhere by talking about an animal's similarity to humans, but it is even more effective if you share the animal's name, and if relevant, their backstory. In many cases, this backstory can also be relevant to a conservation issue too- especially in cases where animals were non-releasable rehab animals and/or abandoned/confiscated pets.


I think it's important to bring up, within this context, that much of the criticism and outrage over Marius' death did not come from those people in Copenhagen who knew the zoo and had any sort of connection to Marius- a lot of it came from the United States, United Kingdom, and other countries, where people wouldn't have had any clue who Marius was otherwise. With all due respect to both of them, neither Jack Hanna nor Terry Maple, as prominent directors of US zoos, had any business publicly criticizing an EAZA facility half way across the world. I don't think the name had anything to do with the outrage, more so just the fact that giraffes are a highly popular, charismatic megafauna.
Click to expand...
While agreeing with you. Have you already watched wildlife documentaries right? Many of them create strong emotional experiences and in most of them, animals do not receive names. Many even when they follow the same individuals do not name them. In my opinion, names create empathy for the individual first and foremost. Only if you explain the context further you can connect that empathy towards nature conservation. As some pointed out, it can serve as a conveyor for conservation story-telling. However, in many cases when I see animal names I do not see that context being presented to the public. So visitors only get empathy towards the individuals and not much else.
 
snowleopard said:
Thoiry Zoo changing its name (it's actually Worlds of Wild) is an awful decision. 'WOW' is a ridiculous title and what was wrong with plain old Thoiry Zoo? It reminds me of the upcoming Saint Louis Zoo WildCare Park, which will be a large safari-style zoo in the state of Missouri. 'WildCare' is a terrible name in my opinion, not really meaning anything in today's world.
Click to expand...
Of course the renaming of Thoiry Zoo (that, simultaneously, has announced to cease animal naming, what a paradox !) looks ridiculous, by a French point of view.
I think that giving an English name to this zoo is senseless, especially assuming that a very small proportion of Thoiry visitors comes from foreign countries (I haven't got any hard data about Thoiry, but the proportion of foreign visitors is extremely low in Beauval, even with its Giant Pandas... ; the situation is probably more or less the same in other French zoos, unless they have a special policy dedicated to attract the foreigners).
To be fair, WOW isn't the sole name of Thoiry but of a "brand" of zoos that includes also Peaugres Zoo and a Portuguese Safari Zoo that I don't know (as well as 99,99% of the visitors of Thoiry).
It doesn't change anything to the senselessness of the "rebranding" of Thoiry.
 
Just chiming in that an interesting example of the potential value in naming an animal is that of Jumbo the elephant. Of course, Jumbo was a circus elephant, not a zoo animal... but I digress.

A lot of folks assumed he was named Jumbo because he was so big. It is, in fact, the opposite- we call things that are big "jumbo" BECAUSE of him! His name likely originated from some African language, likely Swahili (Onjamba, Jamba, or Jambe are the three that come up most often in search results- the words are variously referred to as translating to "elephant", "chief", or "thing", though I can't tell if this is simply a historical difference or mistranslation as most translations I'm seeing now use the word "tembo" for "elephant). People started associating the word "jumbo" with this huge elephant- and now we have jumbotrons and jumbo-sized and jumbo shrimp!

Obviously most animals won't have names with such huge cultural impacts. But every so often one comes along that packs a jumbo-sized punch!
 
Rohin said:
Wasn't Jumbo originally living in London zoo (where he got his name I believe) before he got sold to a circus?
Click to expand...
You're correct- pardon my misinformation lol! He was born in Sudan, exported to Jardin des Plantes in Paris, moved to the London Zoo on 1865, then sold to P.T. Barnum in 1882 (despite public protest). He spent the majority of his life in the zoo, actually... that's on me.

That said I'm not sure which was necessarily more instrumental in his name becoming a word. I'm in the US so I'm not sure how commonplace the word jumbo is over in Europe lol. I have my suspicions that Dumbo contributed to its popularity as a term a little bit, too.
 
filovirus said:
You're correct- pardon my misinformation lol! He was born in Sudan, exported to Jardin des Plantes in Paris, moved to the London Zoo on 1865, then sold to P.T. Barnum in 1882 (despite public protest). He spent the majority of his life in the zoo, actually... that's on me.

That said I'm not sure which was necessarily more instrumental in his name becoming a word. I'm in the US so I'm not sure how commonplace the word jumbo is over in Europe lol. I have my suspicions that Dumbo contributed to its popularity as a term a little bit, too.
Click to expand...
I assume jumbo is more common in the UK (Edit:In regards to Europe) but I don't think I've ever heard it in Ireland.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top