After reading this thread, im going to stick my neck on the line and say what i think, so dont start sending me death threats 
In my opinion I think its time that London moved forwards and maybe stopped keeping larger hoof stock as they require too much space for such a constricted site. Is a busy zoo located in the middle of a city the proper place for an animal such as an okapi that are generally spooked at the drop of a hat?
I personally would like to see the zoo become more specialised within its collection by building up on either its cats, canid or primate collection.
Or maybe develop a collection of species that are unusal and seldom seen within other UK zoos to set it apart from the rest. Similar to RSCC.
I think considering as its almost looked up to as the head of the zoos in the country, that it is falling behind from other collections like chester for example and the plans that bristol have. What the place needs is a large injection of cash. I think the rainforest life and gorilla enclosure are a step in the right direction but they need to do something on a much bigger and larger scale.
Imagine what its like for tourists paying £20 to get into the world famous London zoo to see no elephants, bears, chimps, orangs, rhino and etc that most foreign zoos have. What they need to do is to combat this possible dissapointment by creating a better quality of enclosure and collection that provides a unique as well as a more immersive experience. Otherwsie i dont know where the zoo is heading really.
In my opinion I think its time that London moved forwards and maybe stopped keeping larger hoof stock as they require too much space for such a constricted site. Is a busy zoo located in the middle of a city the proper place for an animal such as an okapi that are generally spooked at the drop of a hat?
I personally would like to see the zoo become more specialised within its collection by building up on either its cats, canid or primate collection.
Or maybe develop a collection of species that are unusal and seldom seen within other UK zoos to set it apart from the rest. Similar to RSCC.
I think considering as its almost looked up to as the head of the zoos in the country, that it is falling behind from other collections like chester for example and the plans that bristol have. What the place needs is a large injection of cash. I think the rainforest life and gorilla enclosure are a step in the right direction but they need to do something on a much bigger and larger scale.
Imagine what its like for tourists paying £20 to get into the world famous London zoo to see no elephants, bears, chimps, orangs, rhino and etc that most foreign zoos have. What they need to do is to combat this possible dissapointment by creating a better quality of enclosure and collection that provides a unique as well as a more immersive experience. Otherwsie i dont know where the zoo is heading really.
MARK
Well-Known Member
I think considering as its almost looked up to as the head of the zoos in the country, that it is falling behind from other collections like chester for example and the plans that bristol have. What the place needs is a large injection of cash. I think the rainforest life and gorilla enclosure are a step in the right direction but they need to do something on a much bigger and larger scale.
Imagine what its like for tourists paying £20 to get into the world famous London zoo to see no elephants, bears, chimps, orangs, rhino and etc that most foreign zoos have. What they need to do is to combat this possible dissapointment by creating a better quality of enclosure and collection that provides a unique as well as a more immersive experience. Otherwsie i dont know where the zoo is heading really.[/QUOTE]
I could not agree with you more (Take note ZSL)
Imagine what its like for tourists paying £20 to get into the world famous London zoo to see no elephants, bears, chimps, orangs, rhino and etc that most foreign zoos have. What they need to do is to combat this possible dissapointment by creating a better quality of enclosure and collection that provides a unique as well as a more immersive experience. Otherwsie i dont know where the zoo is heading really.[/QUOTE]
I could not agree with you more (Take note ZSL)
johnstoni
Well-Known Member
As browsing ungulates, I don't think London should stop keeping okapi. I do feel that animals that are predominantly grazers such as the zebras have no place in a small city zoo.
ZSL have been fairly successful in the last 10 years with their okapi. I don't know why the stereotypical behaviour has been more evident since they were housed here when 'Into Africa' opened. It may be that Elila in particular has always exhibited such behaviour.
However, in the previous enclosure, not only did they have a network of 3 enclosures, they also had more indoor areas. The outdoor exhibit was only really viewable on one side, and one of the indoor houses (the other side of their current house) was permanently offshow. The paddock was more densely planted with trees of varying ages. I don't know if any of this made a difference. I do remember rope being wrapped around the railings of the indoor stalls of their section of the giraffe house. In hindsight, this could have also been to prevent bar sucking.
I do agree that the current okapi enclosure and house, on its own, is not really enough. As I have said elsewhere, I would LOVE for the zoo to send its zebra somewhere they can graze, and allow the okapis to once again have access to this area. It would allow the okapis access to 2 more enclosures plus it would more than double the cold weather indoor areas. I fear they want to retain the zebra permanently though.
ZSL have been fairly successful in the last 10 years with their okapi. I don't know why the stereotypical behaviour has been more evident since they were housed here when 'Into Africa' opened. It may be that Elila in particular has always exhibited such behaviour.
However, in the previous enclosure, not only did they have a network of 3 enclosures, they also had more indoor areas. The outdoor exhibit was only really viewable on one side, and one of the indoor houses (the other side of their current house) was permanently offshow. The paddock was more densely planted with trees of varying ages. I don't know if any of this made a difference. I do remember rope being wrapped around the railings of the indoor stalls of their section of the giraffe house. In hindsight, this could have also been to prevent bar sucking.
I do agree that the current okapi enclosure and house, on its own, is not really enough. As I have said elsewhere, I would LOVE for the zoo to send its zebra somewhere they can graze, and allow the okapis to once again have access to this area. It would allow the okapis access to 2 more enclosures plus it would more than double the cold weather indoor areas. I fear they want to retain the zebra permanently though.
I agree entirely with johnstoni, okapi as browsers are a suitable species but zebra as a grazing animal are not. I'm very much in favour of removing the zebra and giving the okapi more space, both inside and out.
London has great potential to be an intimate, immersive experience but lack of money and the restrictions of a site full of protected structures - and good old fashioned British lack of imagination - make it difficult to do anything major.
I do feel it is important, however, to note that the zoo has changed massively in a generation with many new exhibits and changes of use of enclosures and this should be applauded.
London has great potential to be an intimate, immersive experience but lack of money and the restrictions of a site full of protected structures - and good old fashioned British lack of imagination - make it difficult to do anything major.
I do feel it is important, however, to note that the zoo has changed massively in a generation with many new exhibits and changes of use of enclosures and this should be applauded.
I would also add that I do not think the current okapi enclosure is poor. Whilst the indoor stalls are relatively small, they have a choice of two and the house can be closed to the public for greater privacy (they may also have an off show area at the back). They are in a quiet part of the zoo and road noise is less intrusive than, say the children's playground at Marwell. They are partially screened from the public in the outdoor enclosure. I remember seeing them in just the left hand side of the giraffe house (with young) and thinking they were getting a raw deal. The only other place I have seen them is Marwell, where they spend most of their time inside (better than at London) and although the outdoor paddocks are much larger, there are far more animals and they essentailly have hardstanding or grass. I am inclined to think the excessive licking and sucking predates time spent at London.
Last edited:
procyonlotor
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to lynch you, but London Zoo needs to be cut some slack here! We're never going to have the space that Bristol or Chester have, but we send things out to Whipsnade instead. It's a shame that there aren't better transport links there since it's beginning to pull it's weight. Technically, London's collection is still huge, we've just spread things out a little between two sites- better for the animals to be on the huge estate we've got on the downs than in a noisy city anyway.
The fact is, due to the current EU regulations on minimum space requirements, and our lack of space, we're never going to be able to get the big animals back into London. Besides, you don't need to have big animals to keep visitors entertained. Did you know one of the most popular exhibits is the Butterfly House?
At least we've still got lions, and tigers
And yes, we do need money. We ALWAYS need money ><
Shirokuma asked where the first Okapi were housed. There is a photo that crops up in some of the literature (from 1935, I think) showing the second Okapi standing in front of what looks like a whitewashed garden fence. I have just acquired a 1938 guide book which infers this was at the Deer and Cattle sheds. The original Okapi didn't live long and was probably housed in the same place.
johnstoni
Well-Known Member
I would argue that you in fact have much more space than Bristol at London.
I don't think there is a general public appetite for large animals returning to London, and I think the urban oasis brand development in contrast to the herds of large beasts in the open landscape of Whipsnade makes good business sense. Okapi are not a species that I feel require vast areas to roam, I am largely interested in whether their current exhibit, created essentially to allow the zoo to accommodate zebras for INTO AFRICA, is in fact an inferior facility to the setup they had just prior to this move. I am not questioning Londons overall suitability for its remaining large species.
I don’t understand this comment.
Bristol Zoo occupies 12 acres, while London Zoo is 36 acres in area; consequently London Zoo has three times as much space as Bristol Zoo.
If the photo is from 1935, that would have been the first London Zoo okapi; the Prince of Wales presented this specimen to the zoo on 31st July 1935. According the Annual Report for 1935, this okapi died after three months in the menagerie from “an intense infestation of parasitic worms”.
The 1938 guide book says, 'The most important inhabitant of the cattle sheds is the okapi,from the Ituri forest of the Belgian Congo. The present specimen, a male about nine years old, was a gift to H.M the King from the King of the Belgians, and is the second to have been in captivity in this country...'
However, I have another book with the same photograph dated 1935. I suppose it is possible that the animal being described is the second one but the photo is of the first one. Alternatively the date might be incorrect for the photo.
However, I have another book with the same photograph dated 1935. I suppose it is possible that the animal being described is the second one but the photo is of the first one. Alternatively the date might be incorrect for the photo.
The first London Zoo okapi definitely arrived at the zoo in 1935; the ZSL Annual Report for 1935 lists okapi as being a species new to the collection. According to this Annual Report, the okapi was “presented by H. M. ‘The King of the Belgians’ to H.R.H the Prince of Wales and by H.R.H to the society, July 31st 1935". (Incidentally, the okapi studbook also confirms that London Zoo’s first okapi arrived on 31st July 1935.)
London Zoo’s second okapi arrived on 21st July 1937.
Thanks, Tim. Perhaps the 1938 guidebook was produced in 1937 ready for the following year and given the economic situation was really just a reprint of a previous edition with new advertisments. It is quite a hefty guidebook and would have guided you around the collection telling you whether to turn left or right and exactly what you should expect to see. It certainly sounds as though it is decsribing the same animal. Presumably and first and second examples in the country were both housed at London Zoo?
Having read through this thread about bar sucking in giraffe and okapis I offer the following observation on a natural behaviour.
On three occasions in the wild, once in Botswana and twice in South Africa I have seen giraffes sucking bones. They roll quite large bones around in mouths spinning them on their tounge with obvious skill for long periods. Such large animals must have a high requirment for calcium and minerals and cannot lick them from the ground as easily as other ungulates. I have mentioned this to several girrafe keepers but so far I have not persuaded one to try it !
On three occasions in the wild, once in Botswana and twice in South Africa I have seen giraffes sucking bones. They roll quite large bones around in mouths spinning them on their tounge with obvious skill for long periods. Such large animals must have a high requirment for calcium and minerals and cannot lick them from the ground as easily as other ungulates. I have mentioned this to several girrafe keepers but so far I have not persuaded one to try it !
Pathe film
This may (or may not) be of interest;
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=28635
I don't think anyone else has pointed it out but apologies if I am wrong. There are lots of films like this on the website and some are excellent.
This may (or may not) be of interest;
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=28635
I don't think anyone else has pointed it out but apologies if I am wrong. There are lots of films like this on the website and some are excellent.