Port Lympne Wild Animal Park American review of Port Lympne

[James27]

I think it's different audiences, people from the US seem more impressed with big commercial things (like DAK), whilst the UK is perfectly happy with little Bristol zoo (which is great btw). I don't mean that in an offensive way, but it's just something I've noticed.
And Snowleopard, there's plenty of cages, bars and mesh in Europe, not just the UK lol.

 

[MARK]

What ever way you look at it most of the animal species at both zoo's not only do very well, they THRIVE there and that is more important in my book

 

[sooty mangabey]

I love to see lush, green, natural, realistic zoo exhibits, and I cannot stand to see pits, grottoes, bars, metal poles or jagged walls separating human visitors from captive animals.

Your tastes have been well broadcast on ZooChat over the past years, Scott, and you are, of course, entitled to them. But they are only your tastes. There is nothing that can be proven about an animal's desire to be maintained behind a moat rather than behind "bars", to be visible through an underwater-viewing window rather than over a "jagged wall".

I enjoy the music of your country-man Neil Young. Others don't. Others prefer Celine Dion. I'd rather not listen to her warbling. And that is all well and good. But if a Celine Dion fan were to start slagging off Neil Young every time his name were mentioned, and to express incredulity that anyone could prefer to listen to him rather than to Celine's proclamations that her heart will go on, and to take cheap cracks at Neil Young's "unusual" singing style, I'd probably find myself thinking, hey, what's your problem? And if that person had never actually heard a Neil Young song, my patience might be pushed even further.

Of course I'm not denying your right to an opinion. Of course I'm not suggesting that you're wrong. But I do wish that you would be more tolerant of other ways of doing things. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and the zoo world is a better place for the diversity that exists within it.

 

[snowleopard]

@sooty mangabey: Nice post mate, and I know that I have frustrated you on ZooChat over the years with my constant praise of new, modern exhibits and bashing of what I perceive as outdated metal boxes. I am sorry that I irk you with my desire to see lush, green, enrichment-filled "habitats" in top-notch zoos. However, I have indeed allowed for concessions and even included this statement yesterday on this thread:

"Perhaps the Aspinall approach is fantastic for the apes and much better than many immersive exhibits".

I also realize that there are plenty of Brits who vastly outnumber me on this site, and you and others will consistently leap to the defense of the Aspinall cages. You bring up an amusing point with your reference to music, and this will make you laugh but I'm a massive Neil Young fan! Including every single disc (as there are many double albums that he has released) I've got close to 45 CD's of Neil Young music, and that man is a musical legend to many Canadians. Just about all of my students at high school cannot stand his style of singing, and an equally intriguing argument could be made about the screeching that Celine Dion emits from her mouth. She sells millions upon millions of records, so is obviously beloved by many. But why? We must all respect those individuals who buy her records, and she is certainly one of the more popular singers in existence.

When attempting to persuade someone who does not regularly attend zoos that such institutions have a place in the 21st century, and there is most definitely a need to convince people that zoos have a vital role to play in conservation, the Aspinall ape cages are a detriment to that conservation. Average, non-ZooChat citizens, do not want to see metal boxes but instead lavishly decorated rainforest jungles. It all comes down to aesthetics, and some people like me think that aesthetics DO COUNT when it comes to zoos. Others believe that a sun bear cage with bars on it at the Berlin Zoo, or a gorilla cage with steel bars at Port Lympne, does not matter when it comes to showcasing captive wildlife. David Hancocks famously called such folks "British apologists" in his 2001 book "A Different Nature", as he realized that there are individuals that will defend a zoo enclosure as long as it is great for the inhabitants. To hell with what it looks like...but then can't there be a combination of the two? That is why I brought up the gorilla exhibits in Seattle, Orlando, San Diego and New York. Aren't they the best of both worlds?

To quote Arizona Docent himself:

"I skipped most of the primate enclosures, since I was there to photograph cats. However, the few I saw as I walked past them were not very good. As far as I can tell (remember I did not see many) the monkey cages are all just fenced in jungle gyms, with no attempt at naturalistic designs."

 

[Maguari]

When attempting to persuade someone who does not regularly attend zoos that such institutions have a place in the 21st century, and there is most definitely a need to convince people that zoos have a vital role to play in conservation, the Aspinall ape cages are a detriment to that conservation.

A 'detriment'? Some of the most successful breeding groups in the world?

Average, non-ZooChat citizens, do not want to see metal boxes but instead lavishly decorated rainforest jungles.

To be honest, most of them probably just want to see gorillas. But I have no more evidence for my interpretation than yours.

It all comes down to aesthetics, and some people like me think that aesthetics DO COUNT when it comes to zoos. Others believe that a sun bear cage with bars on it at the Berlin Zoo, or a gorilla cage with steel bars at Port Lympne, does not matter when it comes to showcasing captive wildlife.

Of course you're right to say aesthetics should count for something; my point and I think that of others in this thread is that they simply don't count for everything and we shouldn't dismiss something altogether because it's not pretty.

David Hancocks famously called such folks "British apologists" in his 2001 book "A Different Nature", as he realized that there are individuals that will defend a zoo enclosure as long as it is great for the inhabitants. To hell with what it looks like

I cannot tell you the depths of my dislike for the word 'apologists' - it's a very neat way of completely dismissing the views of anyone who happens to disagree with you. If an enclosure is great for it's inhabitants then why shouldn't people defend it if that's what they consider important?

...but then can't there be a combination of the two? That is why I brought up the gorilla exhibits in Seattle, Orlando, San Diego and New York. Aren't they the best of both worlds?

I've not seen any of these (having visited San Diego just before the gorillas were redone) so won't comment.

 

[Johnny Morris.]

For what it's worth, my, and my familys reaction to the Gorilla enclosures at the Aspinall parks was, wow. We probably spent more time watching the Gorrillas at Howletts, than we have spent watching any other animal in any other exhibit, in any other zoo. If every Zoo had one of these cages, they'd be onto a winner.

 

[snowleopard]

@Maguari: A detriment by the fact that if you show high school students a series of photos of the "Palace of the Apes" they will not be impressed. If you show them a series of photos of "Congo Gorilla Forest" they will be impressed. I've done this before, and I guarantee you that if you do the same you'll get the same reaction. Or maybe not...because Brits might be passionate about their own cages over the foreign rainforests. Maybe you could give it a shot with some strangers? However, you correctly point out that the successful breeding record at the Aspinall parks is tremendous. After a lean few years, once there was a large enough group of gorillas then naturally the numbers increased as time went by. Gorillas at the Bronx and Atlanta zoos are constantly breeding as well, as there are approximately 40 apes between those two zoos. I could put 20 gorillas in a steel cage in someone's backyard and eventually have 50 of the animals running around. Breeding records have zilch to do with great zoo exhibits.

I do have evidence of zoo visitors wanting to see gorillas in rainforest environments, as the Melbourne Zoo conducted a large-scale survey before and after they radically overhauled their gorilla exhibit 20 years ago. The response was astonishing, and visitors went from being negative and mean towards the apes to developing a better understanding of nature and garnering respect for the magnificent African primates.

Hancocks chose the words "British apologists" because many individuals often defend terrible looking exhibits by stating that the enclosures are "good for the animals". His own words, but they are particularly apt in this circumstance as individuals do defend animal exhibits that are terrible to look at but perhaps positive for the animals. I've said it over and over again, but we can all have it BOTH WAYS if we look at trend-setters in San Diego, Seattle, New York and Orlando.

 

[James27]

I do have evidence of zoo visitors wanting to see gorillas in rainforest environments, as the Melbourne Zoo conducted a large-scale survey before and after they radically overhauled their gorilla exhibit 20 years ago. The response was astonishing, and visitors went from being negative and mean towards the apes to developing a better understanding of nature and garnering respect for the magnificent African primates.

Is there any proof saying that relates to the exhibit, or have times and the idea of gorillas as a whole just changed since the "King kong" era?
And you say about exhibit quality having zilch to do with breeding records (true btw), but I say the same about exhibit quality not always having a lot to do with the whole respect for the animals theory, as I've never seen more respectful, well behaved and in awe zoo visitors than those watching the gorillas at Howletts. Just my 2 cents

 

[snowleopard]

@Ash: the Melbourne Zoo survey was only 20 years ago, and the first King Kong film came out in the 1930's when the perception of apes was indeed much different than it is in the modern era. I think that the survey (incidentally does anyone have it? - I wish it was published online) is the only proof that anyone has that people prefer to gaze at gorillas in a more natural habitat, but I can also use the example of my class last year (Grade 11's - 16-17 year-old Canadians) who unanimously preferred the "rainforest" exhibits to the "steel cages". No one enjoyed the Aspinall boxes as much as the landscaped jungles, even after I told them that the apes appear to be "content" and "breed well" in the British cages. To be honest my little experiment is not totally conclusive, and you basically just have to take my word for it, but it is revealing to what a general public might well believe.

Here is what is most revealing to me: NO ZOO anywhere on the planet is building Aspinall cages anymore. For better or worse they are a dying breed and are practically extinct in the modern zoo world. Enjoy them while you still can!

 

[Maguari]

@Maguari: A detriment by the fact that if you show high school students a series of photos of the "Palace of the Apes" they will not be impressed. If you show them a series of photos of "Congo Gorilla Forest" they will be impressed. I've done this before, and I guarantee you that if you do the same you'll get the same reaction.

But would you if you took them to see the exhibits for themselves? I suspect it'd be a lot less clear-cut.

Or maybe not...because Brits might be passionate about their own cages over the foreign rainforests.

If we're playing that game, perhaps Brits are less easily swept away by surface gloss?

 

[James27]

@Ash: the Melbourne Zoo survey was only 20 years ago, and the first King Kong film came out in the 1930's when the perception of apes was indeed much different than it is in the modern era.

Plenty of people still think the King Kong way, including my dad. Well, he did until we visited Howletts that is. True story

 

[snowleopard]

@Maguari: you might be right about your funny "surface gloss" statement, and since I'm a "perennially neutral" Canadian (similar to Switzerland!) I am free to point out differences between nationalities. Actually both my parents, and their parents, and their parents, etc, are all English...but my siblings and I are Canadians as my folks emigrated to Canada in the 1970's. I could have easily turned out to be one of those ZooChatters who showers disdain on the Bronx's Congo Gorilla Forest over the Aspinall cages! Who needs those stinkin' fake jungles!

 

[mark77]

@Maguari: you might be right about your funny "surface gloss" statement, and since I'm a "perennially neutral" Canadian (similar to Switzerland!) I am free to point out differences between nationalities. Actually both my parents, and their parents, and their parents, etc, are all English...but my siblings and I are Canadians as my folks emigrated to Canada in the 1970's. I could have easily turned out to be one of those ZooChatters who showers disdain on the Bronx's Congo Gorilla Forest over the Aspinall cages! Who needs those stinkin' fake jungles!

We are comparing a $50'000'000+? exhibit compared to a $1'000'000? one Both do very good jobs of providing for the large groups of gorillas housed. I dont think the levels of animal care at both places are in question.

What is in question is how much does an enclosure need to be 'real'. If I wanted to be facetious I could argue that $49'000'000 has been spent keeping the viewing public happy. Money which could have been spent directly on Gorilla conservation in the wild, or building an far larger enclosure.

 

[Pertinax]

. I spent a long time in the kitchen garden and watched the people as well as gorillas, you may be surprised to know that a lot of people I watched stayed for at least half an hour - far better than the five minutes (maximum) that they would spend at most other zoo displays of this species.

I have noticed this time and time again. That area seems to have a special 'ambience' which makes people stay there watching the Gorillas for long periods of time- far longer than at most other zoos. I think there are a combination of reasons for this;

1. Group composition & Behaviour- the Gorilla groups here are complete families with babies and juveniles of different ages, so there is a full range of behaviour to watch.
2. Proximity-Visitors are very close to the animals, which is an additional attraction.
3. Location-By the time they get to this area, visitors are ready for a 'rest' and relax while watching the Gorillas. Sometimes there are roof-feeding sessions to see also.

I have also noticed that at Howletts, visitors tend to spend far long watching the 'kitchen garden' groups than they do the 2 other groups located near the entrance- or any of the Gorillas at Port Lympne.

 

[Yassa]

"Perhaps the Aspinall approach is fantastic for the apes and much better than many immersive exhibits, but at the end of the day in places like New York, San Diego, Seattle and Orlando I feel that zoo fans can have it both ways."

It is not possible for every zoo to build large, naturalistic gorilla enclosures like in Bronx, San Diego or Disney`s AK. A "naturalistic" ape enclosure with a dry or water moat with a gentle slope needs a lot more space then a cage, and to keep enough vegetation and trees alive despite constant use by a troop of gorillas, the enclosure needs to be a lot bigger then a Howletts-style cage where the apes can use the full hight of the cage to climb and get away from each other. There is no way Howletts could build large, Bronx-like enclosures for each of their 4 breeding groups, they simply don`t have the space (unless, for example, they`d take the huge grass yard from the elephant enclosure which I am sure you wouldn`t like, Snowleopard!). Many other zoo have neither. I don`t see a need to spend that much money, it would be a total waste of resources that is much needed for other animals and to support conservation projects.

I can see why you prefer the Bronx style, but money and space will always be restricted. What I don`t understand, though, is why you don`t spend as much energy and time to critisize those gorilla enclosures that TRY to look "natural" for the visitors but are in reality awful for the apes; the Hannover gorilla enclosure for example. No visible bars, no cage, but a dangerous dry moat and huge walls made of mock rock. Nothing in the enclosure, just one single dead bare climbing tree. It is an enclosure that looks great for the average visitor, but its awful, and enclosures like that need to be slammed, not the Howletts`s cages!!

 

[taun]

I can see why you prefer the Bronx style, but money and space will always be restricted. What I don`t understand, though, is why you don`t spend as much energy and time to critisize those gorilla enclosures that TRY to look "natural" for the visitors but are in reality awful for the apes; the Hannover gorilla enclosure for example. No visible bars, no cage, but a dangerous dry moat and huge walls made of mock rock. Nothing in the enclosure, just one single dead bare climbing tree. It is an enclosure that looks great for the average visitor, but its awful, and enclosures like that need to be slammed, not the Howletts`s cages!!

Very well put Yassa, even the other natural styled gorilla enclosure's are not great compared to the Howletts cages.

 

[foz]

I'd add my thoughts Given that I have not been to the aspinall parks or ever set foot in America this is based on photos and what I have read.

from what I can getis Why change somehting that works? obviously the gorillas have space, feel comfortable and breed well, and from reading this thread it can be seen that visitors come away with an amazing respect for gorillas having observed natural behaviour and learn something about the gorillas...so hopefully to go away taking action to conserve gorillas as a species. Is there really the need to splash all that cash on large immersive jungles when the same can be acheived through the simple but effective cages of the aspinall cages...not pretty but get the job done.

Why I think people prefer to see them in a natural rainforest enclosure is that really people believe it is the only way see 'happy' natural gorillas. They are not aware of the fact that the same can be seen without the flashy forests. Generally people want to see the animal first and the enclosure second.

 

[Jose]

@Maguari: A detriment by the fact that if you show high school students a series of photos of the "Palace of the Apes" they will not be impressed. If you show them a series of photos of "Congo Gorilla Forest" they will be impressed. I've done this before, and I guarantee you that if you do the same you'll get the same reaction. Or maybe not...because Brits might be passionate about their own cages over the foreign rainforests. Maybe you could give it a shot with some strangers? However, you correctly point out that the successful breeding record at the Aspinall parks is tremendous. After a lean few years, once there was a large enough group of gorillas then naturally the numbers increased as time went by. Gorillas at the Bronx and Atlanta zoos are constantly breeding as well, as there are approximately 40 apes between those two zoos. I could put 20 gorillas in a steel cage in someone's backyard and eventually have 50 of the animals running around. Breeding records have zilch to do with great zoo e

I do have evidence of zoo visitors wanting to see gorillas in rainforest environments, as the Melbourne Zoo conducted a large-scale survey before and after they radically overhauled their gorilla exhibit 20 years ago. The response was astonishing, and visitors went from being negative and mean towards the apes to developing a better understanding of nature and garnering respect for the magnificent African primates.

Hancocks chose the words "British apologists" because many individuals often defend terrible looking exhibits by stating that the enclosures are "good for the animals". His own words, but they are particularly apt in this circumstance as individuals do defend animal exhibits that are terrible to look at but perhaps positive for the animals. I've said it over and over again, but we can all have it BOTH WAYS if we look at trend-setters in San Diego, Seattle, New York and Orlando.

Snowleopard you fail to take into account it isnt just a British phenomena of being passionate about the Aspinall parks or Brits defending a British zoo over a foreign one, Im Mexican i have been to the United states and seen several of the zoos and their exhibits which you seem to foam at the mouth with enthusiam for and for me they were nothing compared to the Aspinall parks. i just think of them as these kind of plastic , fantastic psuedo natrual habitats which are primarily crowd pleasing exhibits almost like theme parks. Why not add half a dozen hutu and tsutsi war criminals armed with klashnikovs and rusty machetes into the exhibit to allow maximum authenticity of the congo experience? or how about special effects of landmines ? some trees of the exhibit being cut down to illustrate deforestation maybe ? that would probably dazzle the zoo going public. Zoological gardens are important for conservation and i dont think it is of importance to recreate mini congos in our own urban jungle for captive gorillas. Zoos are not Imax cinemas. No doubt the crowd comes away happy at such natrualistic enclosures but i can tell you that i was far more impressed with the Aspinall parks and for that matter the gorillas looked much more content at Howletts. If you are fond of seeing great apes in psuedo jungles might i suggest like i did with Reduakari that you should save some money and visit Gorillas in Rwanda or the democratic republic of the congo , then you will see the real thing. Look at all the comments in defence of the methods used by the Aspinall parks , dont you find your comment a bit out of place, a bit outnumbered ? afterall even Arizona docent wrote a damning comment on the parks , changed his mind when he visited , i think it is all a matter of your own personal taste snowleopard , to use sooty mangabeys analogy in a hypothetical situation because i am a huge fan of Siouxsie and the banshees ,joy division and David Bowie i could say that your own taste for Oasis,lady ga ga or the black eyed peas is decadent and ridiculous .... very close minded and idealistic no?

 

[Jose]

Your tastes have been well broadcast on ZooChat over the past years, Scott, and you are, of course, entitled to them. But they are only your tastes. There is nothing that can be proven about an animal's desire to be maintained behind a moat rather than behind "bars", to be visible through an underwater-viewing window rather than over a "jagged wall".

I enjoy the music of your country-man Neil Young. Others don't. Others prefer Celine Dion. I'd rather not listen to her warbling. And that is all well and good. But if a Celine Dion fan were to start slagging off Neil Young every time his name were mentioned, and to express incredulity that anyone could prefer to listen to him rather than to Celine's proclamations that her heart will go on, and to take cheap cracks at Neil Young's "unusual" singing style, I'd probably find myself thinking, hey, what's your problem? And if that person had never actually heard a Neil Young song, my patience might be pushed even further.

Of course I'm not denying your right to an opinion. Of course I'm not suggesting that you're wrong. But I do wish that you would be more tolerant of other ways of doing things. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and the zoo world is a better place for the diversity that exists within it.

very very good analogy sooty mangabey , very well said , by the way just for the record i like music of Niel Young especially the song golden heart

 

[Dan]

Off-topic, but I just can´t help myself: I thought that I was the only forumster that was into Siouxie & The Banshees.... not my favorite band but I LOVE their debut single "Hong Kong Garden", their cover of the Beatles´"Helter Skelter" as well as their absolut masterpiece, "Metal Postcard". Oh... and "Israel" is another favorite track...

Neil Young is a favorite of mine and I would put "Like a Hurricane" in my list of "Top Ten Songs".

Sorry for the interruption - now go on with this highly interesting debate. I appreciate it a lot. Just don´t get angry at each other, guys. Keep it pleasant!