I feel like its tricky to find fault with Whipsnade's enclosures, but there seem to be a few instances where the size and quality of some of the hoofstock stables hold the modern zoo back from housing the large herds of rhino and antelope it did in the past. I'd also concur that if serval and vultures were to return - which I very much feel they should - Whipsnade of all zoos surely has the space to house them in a purpose built enclosure on the site.
ZSL Whipsnade Zoo ZSL Whipsnade Zoo 2019
- Thread starter monster
- Start date
which enclosures stand out as being specifically suitable for the species they house? you can dismiss most offhand simply due to the stabling, as billeel rightly points out. where are the sand yards for oryx for example, or is it best practice for them to be on grass year round thus getting full of parasites? chimps? hippos swimming o rheir own dung? come on, even the passage through asia has nomeans of ma aging the deer. so which enclosures are so suitable?
How did they manage, decades ago, when they had many more hoofstock?
I'm sorry but this is really unfair on the staff and the amazing work that the zoo does. Do hippos for example live in crystal clear waters in Africa? No, the dung is always around. The Chimps have a fantastic enclosure. As far as I'm concerned there is no enclosure at Whipsnade that is not fit for purpose. I'm sorry it's not your favourite zoo but it's past success speaks for it's self.
The only enclosure which I think could be renovated is the sealions! Especially now their is 5! It doesn’t seem big enough to house them comfortable on land and in the water. It was different when just the male and two females, but now offspring yearly it seems to me it needs to be made bigger,
I believe there may be Listing issues with the building, however I wholeheartedly agree that something needs to be done - especially the underwater viewing area which is looking increasingly dilapidated. The water also looked practically algal green and murky on my last visit.
two points to consider. firstly there was less recohnition of requirements ansecondly death was accepted. look at thompsons gazelle fir example. over 100 births but almost as many premature deaths
You can't just pick out Whipsnade because of this. It's unfortunate but it's not as if the keepers didn't care at all. I'm sorry to say this but once again the comments on here do border on being nasty instead of constructive.
I'm not having a go at you personally I just don't like the idea that Whipsnade is careless. The keepers all care for the animals and feel the loss of animals greatly
I wouldn't worry too much, I think the Thomson gazelle comment relate to the 60s/70s/80s, not recent times
and the question was avout how did whipsnade manage big herds HISTORICALLY, so the gazelle comment is a valid example. dont be frightened to read the whole thread before throwing your twopennorth in
I was aware of that, the post I replied to seemed to be referring to the present, that was the only point I was making to ajmcwhipsnade, I wasn't doubting the relevance of your post at all!
i have never criticised the keepers. read my posts. what gives you that idea? i think many on here have a very unrealistic view of just what authority keepers actually have, virtually none. i was a keeper at whipsnade for many years, so I know better than most on here exactly how the place works. keepers are given an animal, sometimes at very short notice, and told to find somewhere for it, especially rejects from RP. blame curators, managers, and directors, yes, but not keepers. next time you are at WZ ask a keeper quietly what they honestly think od the enclisures and if they are honest then most of the members who have commented on this thread will have to eat their words. you accuse me of not liking WZ, nothing could be further from the truth. i love the place and i am actually incredibly angry and frustrated at the way the place has deteriorated and people should get their facts straight beforè leaping to the defence of an organisation which has become a bloated, overfed misdirected juggernaut, zsl. you say you dont like peoples tone, i also dont like the tone many have on here when somebody tries to challenge their cosy images, and I include in that group some longstanding members who seem to think they know everything yet should open their ears and their minds. they might learn something.
I do have my facts and I do understand that no where is perfect. It's just not the place for dirty laundry as it were. Whipsnade has large enclosures where animals can roam as they wish, the need to spend millions to make an enclosure look like Africa or Asia is not really 100% necessary. I love Whipsnade, it's been a special place to me for 30 years and for me it's as good as it's ever been.
Things like this upset me because It's not in the spirit of the website and how can a zoo community move forward when there is fighting or unhappy discussions on the inside. I'm sorry that I've started this but this thread should just be for Whipsnade news as with all the other individual zoo threads.
Things like this upset me because It's not in the spirit of the website and how can a zoo community move forward when there is fighting or unhappy discussions on the inside. I'm sorry that I've started this but this thread should just be for Whipsnade news as with all the other individual zoo threads.
you cant censor things because they dont fit with your ideas.
I'm not asking to censor anything, just asking people to think twice before writing comments that may be considered upsetting or hurtful to some.
The amount of good work that ZSL does for conservation and anima welfare is amazing and I do have my facts. ZSL is not perfect, nothing is, but the positives clearly outweigh the negatives and I just wish people focused on the positives more in what is becoming an increasingly negative society both online and IRL.
what is upsetting or hurtful anout saying that most of the enclosures are poor? because that is what I have done. your last post is quite true, about the good work zsl does, but is nothing to do with the enclosures at WZ. my point about zsl spending money unwusely is also true, and whatever rlse rhey may support oversras or in research it is plain to anyonr that the zoos have been neglected where others have progressed. zsl earned 7omillion last year, 20million more than chester, yet compare the zoos. i rest my case
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
If those figures are correct - it would make anyone wonder...
Even if those figures are correct surely ZSL would have a higher amount of costs than Chester any way? I mean they're running two sites, which (surely) means a larger staff and higher wages, not to mention the higher cost of living in London which would add more to a basic salary. Then there's the feeding bill for a (presumably) larger collection over two sites, more expenditure on bills, again over two sites... I'm no ZSL apologist but even with an extra £20 million per year it's not going to go as far as it would up North.
I'm willing to be corrected on any of the above, but I think it's logical speculation.
Wouldn't the ZSL figure not also include their extensive conservation work?