Marwell Wildlife Marwell Zoo News 2018
- Thread starter Giant Panda
- Start date
I see it as a severe downgrade in visitor service.... I for one don't like to walk around the zoo phone in hand and I don't want to be forced to download an app....
I agree, you certainly wouldn't want to walk around Chester phone in hand, especially in the rain. I don't think you'd really need to have more than the odd glance at the map at Marwell though .
I don't like being forced to download an app either.
I was under the impression the Serval had left the collection - I will be glad if I am mistaken. Where did you see it - in the enclosure near the empty bat eared fox / old Ocelot enclosures? We did take a brief look there on Saturday but I don't recall any signage - and did not see any cats. We were not expecting to though so didn't look very hard!
.
I hope zoos don't go down this route, maps and tickets are the only souvenirs I keep.
Great, just what a failing zoo needs! Is this a joke
Even filling all the cages with meerkat would be better than more play areas!!!
Please excuse what probably seems like a stupid question but am I right in thinking that when a species is lost from a zoo/safari is it only the the zoo's decision or studbook keeper or mutual agreement ? It's the studbook who decides whether a zoo can hold a new species I'm guessing ?
It will indeed!!
Well, first and above everything else a zoo decides for itself which species it wants to keep. Most species are not managed within an EEP and therefore zoos have a lot of liberty.
For EEP species, EEPs work through cooperation and usually agreements with all zoos involved are desired. Most EEPs are actually looking for new holders and are generally very happy to provide animals if a zoo wants a new species. Strict requirements are rather rare. And it is very unusual for an EEP to decide that a zoo is asked to stop with a certain species. However, the one who ultimately decides where a certain animal lives is the owner, and that is never the EEP. If a zoo owns, for example, their gorillas, the EEP cannot force them to move them to other zoos and close the exhibit.
If a zoo wants to stop with a certain species, there is nothing the EEP can do against it. My guess is that the EEP is usually informed about such a decision rather then actually involved in the decision. It ma be a problem to place the animals, though.
Having visited Marwell yesterday, spending an enjoyable day walking around, I thought I would look on ZooChat after an absence of some while and was surprised at some of the recent comments. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and good criticism is always healthy, but there are a number of erroneous statements made here and a lot of misunderstanding about Marwell and the role of zoos in general, and I feel I must comment on a few of these.
Marwell is certainly not the only zoo that has earned a good reputation, both in the zoo community and with visitors, but over the years there has been significant change in public perception and the work zoos can, and should, do. Whether we like it or not, most zoos in the UK are dependent on gate revenue to operate and, in many cases, develop. Marwell has a legacy of mainly timber buildings and paddocks dating back over forty years and there is a limit to what maintenance, repair and change of use can achieve. I think Marwell correctly appreciated that they needed to up-the-game, re-house their key species as a priority and rationalise the collection to allow that to happen. They could have taken the Chester route and borrowed money to do that and accelerate the process, but Marwell has chosen to fund new developments from gate revenue, which means that changes need to be spread over a much longer period, but at a far smaller risk. Marwell also does not have additional land that can be used for zoo purposes so all new build has to be within the confines of its perimeter fence. The "down-side" of all of that is, of course, the need to free up spaces to allow the work to take place, and that has been what is happening, and if I can levy one criticism to Marwell, they should have been/should be more pro-active in telling people why this was going on.
Without going into great detail, a few observations on some of the comments from the recent posts:
"Empty enclosures" are a negative to many people, but enclosures need to be emptied to allow development. There is little benefit in moving other animals "temporarily" back in, unless it is a short-term solution to accommodate species needing to remain in the zoo.
"Empty paddocks". Where?
" zoo that has demolished or left unused several perfectly functional enclosures in recent years. Turning the Takin enclosure into a staff car park was the worst example I can think of." The Takin enclosure was NOT a functional or good enclosure (and, being pedantic, only the off-show part has been turned into a staff parking area). The original house was built for Maned wolves, later used for other species as diverse as Okapi and wallabies. A food store was built to the rear of that and both buildings were used for the Takin. Neither buildings or paddock were built to suit such a strong animal and space was insufficient for more than two adults and a calf. Takin are a species I am particularly fond of so I would love to see them return to Marwell but not until suitable accommodation was built elsewhere, in an open habitat with space to keep a group of these animals.
"travesty of the Valley Field". Well it is used, and can be used, for a wide range of ungulates fed from the adjacent housing, but that takes those animals off-show from elsewhere in the park. I quite like the recent quirky mixes of Waterbuck, Nyala, Somali wild ass and Bactrian camel, but the decision to stop putting giraffe in the paddock was to stem visitors' complaints that they "could not see the giraffe". l). The Valley is well fenced and landscaped but it cannot be used to its full potential until new accommodation is built for additional species.
Gary's rather amusing (all bar two having once been at Marwell - memories play tricks) list of species he would like to see there (and an error as two of the species he mentions are still there too) just high-lights the fact that zoos are forever changing their species; we can all write longer lists for other UK zoos over the same period, and it is worth noting that a large number of the species he mentioned have not been at Marwell since before the start of the 21st century.
"nowadays run by a committee or trust so all the decision making is probably more problematic" Marwell has been operated by a trust since 1978.
"stopped giving out paper maps" Wide distribution of paper maps must be a positive, almost all are thrown away. The road system at Marwell makes navigation around it easy and there are maps posted at all the main junctions. And, unlike almost every other zoo in the country, there is a new edition of a guidebook every year which you can buy if you require a map The app is just an additional option,; not for me but it appeals to a lot of visitors.
People seem to have convenient memories about Marwell in its early days and regret its apparent move away from its early concepts. I am sure most will associate Marwell with its collection of ungulates, so it is perhaps worth having a couple of reality checks. Firstly Marwell today has more ungulate species - and that includes the some domestic species in 1972 - than when it opened. Secondly, there are as many antelope species today as there were in the late 1990's when Marwell had its most broad mammal collection. Current animal husbandry and economics does mean that the large herds of separate species are not likely to be seen again, but the species diversity and importance is still there.
Marwell is certainly not the only zoo that has earned a good reputation, both in the zoo community and with visitors, but over the years there has been significant change in public perception and the work zoos can, and should, do. Whether we like it or not, most zoos in the UK are dependent on gate revenue to operate and, in many cases, develop. Marwell has a legacy of mainly timber buildings and paddocks dating back over forty years and there is a limit to what maintenance, repair and change of use can achieve. I think Marwell correctly appreciated that they needed to up-the-game, re-house their key species as a priority and rationalise the collection to allow that to happen. They could have taken the Chester route and borrowed money to do that and accelerate the process, but Marwell has chosen to fund new developments from gate revenue, which means that changes need to be spread over a much longer period, but at a far smaller risk. Marwell also does not have additional land that can be used for zoo purposes so all new build has to be within the confines of its perimeter fence. The "down-side" of all of that is, of course, the need to free up spaces to allow the work to take place, and that has been what is happening, and if I can levy one criticism to Marwell, they should have been/should be more pro-active in telling people why this was going on.
Without going into great detail, a few observations on some of the comments from the recent posts:
"Empty enclosures" are a negative to many people, but enclosures need to be emptied to allow development. There is little benefit in moving other animals "temporarily" back in, unless it is a short-term solution to accommodate species needing to remain in the zoo.
"Empty paddocks". Where?
" zoo that has demolished or left unused several perfectly functional enclosures in recent years. Turning the Takin enclosure into a staff car park was the worst example I can think of." The Takin enclosure was NOT a functional or good enclosure (and, being pedantic, only the off-show part has been turned into a staff parking area). The original house was built for Maned wolves, later used for other species as diverse as Okapi and wallabies. A food store was built to the rear of that and both buildings were used for the Takin. Neither buildings or paddock were built to suit such a strong animal and space was insufficient for more than two adults and a calf. Takin are a species I am particularly fond of so I would love to see them return to Marwell but not until suitable accommodation was built elsewhere, in an open habitat with space to keep a group of these animals.
"travesty of the Valley Field". Well it is used, and can be used, for a wide range of ungulates fed from the adjacent housing, but that takes those animals off-show from elsewhere in the park. I quite like the recent quirky mixes of Waterbuck, Nyala, Somali wild ass and Bactrian camel, but the decision to stop putting giraffe in the paddock was to stem visitors' complaints that they "could not see the giraffe". l). The Valley is well fenced and landscaped but it cannot be used to its full potential until new accommodation is built for additional species.
Gary's rather amusing (all bar two having once been at Marwell - memories play tricks) list of species he would like to see there (and an error as two of the species he mentions are still there too) just high-lights the fact that zoos are forever changing their species; we can all write longer lists for other UK zoos over the same period, and it is worth noting that a large number of the species he mentioned have not been at Marwell since before the start of the 21st century.
"nowadays run by a committee or trust so all the decision making is probably more problematic" Marwell has been operated by a trust since 1978.
"stopped giving out paper maps" Wide distribution of paper maps must be a positive, almost all are thrown away. The road system at Marwell makes navigation around it easy and there are maps posted at all the main junctions. And, unlike almost every other zoo in the country, there is a new edition of a guidebook every year which you can buy if you require a map The app is just an additional option,; not for me but it appeals to a lot of visitors.
People seem to have convenient memories about Marwell in its early days and regret its apparent move away from its early concepts. I am sure most will associate Marwell with its collection of ungulates, so it is perhaps worth having a couple of reality checks. Firstly Marwell today has more ungulate species - and that includes the some domestic species in 1972 - than when it opened. Secondly, there are as many antelope species today as there were in the late 1990's when Marwell had its most broad mammal collection. Current animal husbandry and economics does mean that the large herds of separate species are not likely to be seen again, but the species diversity and importance is still there.
Marwell has changed over the years as most zoos have,but where is it going now,in 1998 it had105 mammal species,10 domestic,total animal number761,in 2009 93 species mammal total animal number 585,at the end of last year 59 species mammal total number 263,and in the last 10 years it has lost species and not replaced them,the former macaque island now a non animal area with a rhino statue on it says it all,the former Takin area will never be an animal area again,the old Lion house is still standing,and other former animal areas in the zoo have just been replaced with animal items,the valley field was a huge mistake,the Nyala have not been out there for a long time,they are in part of the Okapi house,if you are lucky you may see a camel or couple wild horse in the field now,I think Marwell is at a crossroads eight million for a tropical house not for me,only time will see what future the zoo has.
The Valley Field is something like 25 acres... nearly 20% of their total 140 acres is currently housing a few random ungulates and has done for several years now. It was a waste of money, ill conceived and a waste of space.
That would be fine if development generally followed enclosures becoming empty. That has not been the case.
I had a disappointing situation with the current edition of Marwell's guidebook... I have previously given them permission to use two of my photos on their website in a news article. They then took the liberty of using one of my photos without permission in this years guidebook (the flamingo page) and informed me after the fact as if I should be happy to receive a credit. What makes it even worse is that they have used a picture not even taken at Marwell - it is of Dudley's Chileans. Imagine how excited Dudley would be to find a photograph taken at their park has been used for commercial purposes by Marwell. Total disreagard of copyright, accuracy and a lack of respect for either myself or Dudley.
The only positive thing about this is revenue - I'm sure it will be popular with families and the lego enthusiasts - I just wish I could have more faith in their ability to invest it wisely.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Of course disagreement is good, and I admire your spirited defence of Marwell. However, the suggestion that the "role of zoos" is something fixed and immutable is I think, wrong. All zoos, including Marwell, can fulfil one or several of different "roles"....
Nobody would dispute this. What many would dispute would be the extent to which Marwell has chased visitors - Lego models and all - in the right way. I'm not even sure it has been a successful chase: as I have mentioned previously on this thread, I would suggest that for a zoo of this size, in this area, the half million or so visitors that Marwell is reported to receive is nothing special.
Of course, many of the early buildings have outlived their usefulness, but it is the desecrtaion of more recent areas that is most vexing: the Desert Carnivore House, for example, or the Bongo / Buffalo House, or the Giraffe House, or the Macaque island, or the appalling mishmash of the Australian area and its associated exhibits.
Marwell occupies an enormous site! I don't think anyone could argue that developments need to be squeezed into tight spaces!
Of course this is true - but there is a difference between something being cleared prior to an anticipated development, and something just being left to look a bit derelict. That whole area of the zoo, from the Snow Leopards down to the entrance, has the feel of a shanty town.
This may or may not be true, but if the zoo had wanted to maintain Takin, how much would it have cost to build a robust stable building for them to inhabit? We're not talking about a multi-million pound development here!
The Valley Field is simply awful as an exhibit. It was poorly conceived in the first place - a long thin paddock with viewing from one of the thin ends - and has never worked.
Yes, but it is just indicative of the lack of customer care here. And it's so short-sighted. A map handed out to visitors can guide them to the cafe, to the shows (or maybe not at Marwell), can encourage them to become members. You have the opportunity to put a piece of promotional material in the hand of every visitor - and you turn it down! Madness.
Of course Marwell is not beyond redemption, and I am delighted that you (and, clearly, others) enjoy it. The Rhino / Oryx / Zebra House is pretty good (but how much better would it be if there were some smaller supporting exhibits incorporated into it? Some Weaver Birds, or some interesting rodents, or a reptile display or two?). The Tropical House is incongruous, but is not terrible by any means. The walk-through aviary s pretty nice. There are some pleasing corners here or there (until they are turned into playgrounds). But, overall, is it a zoo which seems confident in itself, and which is doing anything exciting in the display of animals? For me, and I think for many others, no.
Yes, it was created long after the original phase was completed, so much of its perimeter was already unavailable for public access, due to the other enclosures. So when they finally opened it up the viewing could only be from one end really. But that still doesn't explain its under-use from the very start. Personally I feel they lost any direction after the founder left.