Maybe the walking bits will be scattered around the park, and use the trucks as transport between each one. Anyone got any ideas about what the free roaming animals will be, i guess there will be free roaming animals?
Port Lympne Wild Animal Park Something is coming...
- Thread starter hemsley
- Start date
I don`t like this at all. The trucks are awfully noisy. And I hate when I can see a large number of species just driving through without being able to take my time. This will ruin fotografy opportunities, too. I really hope that they will crate a good number of hop on-hop off points so that you can spend more time with elephants, rhinos, whatever specis you are interested in. I agree that the park is so large that it`s a challenge on foot, but there must be other solutions then these terrible trucks which destroy the peaceful athmosphere.
Its going to happen so we'll just have to get used to the idea!!
I can see the practicalities of why they are going to do this though personally I would probably only visit the pedestrian areas in future- if thats still possible. But there is not much in the rest of the park that I haven't seen many times over, either at Howletts or in other UK parks. And fortunately Howletts will stay as it is. Squashed in noisy trucks full of families and children with a 'commentary' guide is not my idea of enjoyable visiting but there we are..
Hmm ... not sure about this one. It makes practical sense for the vast majority of visitors, very few of whom make it to the far reaches of the park.
Personally however, I never enjoy (and rarely use) "public transport" around a zoo where the pace is dictated to me: one day I may walk straight past an enclosure and the next I might spend half an hour watching and photographing one species.
If it's done well, with numerous stop-offs to take a closer look at exhibits, it could be OK. Unfortunately, UK zoos seem to have a habit of going astray when big budgets are at their disposal and the finished product is rarely satisfying.
Personally however, I never enjoy (and rarely use) "public transport" around a zoo where the pace is dictated to me: one day I may walk straight past an enclosure and the next I might spend half an hour watching and photographing one species.
If it's done well, with numerous stop-offs to take a closer look at exhibits, it could be OK. Unfortunately, UK zoos seem to have a habit of going astray when big budgets are at their disposal and the finished product is rarely satisfying.
Interesting comment.
I think the Port Lympne estate was originally purchased as an overflow for the Howlett's collection, because Howletts is only about 50 acres and they couldn't extend there. He looked at other properties before settling on Port Lympne. I think he envisaged it for the animals, and gave little thought to visitors though it was accepted(reluctantly) from the start it would also be open to the public. So it was never laid out particularly with the public in mind, and the steep hillside location, tortuous paths and long distances between exhibits are certainly not visitor friendly for average families and visitors, at least on foot.
I think they've always struggled to keep it financially viable and increasingly have needed to try to attract more visitors- hence first the 'African experience' venture and now these further changes. Port Lympne is not located near any major urban centres so does not have a strong local visitor base. In order to attract visitors from further afield they're having to try something different which people would see as being a worthwhile day out- and different from Howletts which is only 20 miles distant, and ironically, effectively works as a 'rival' collection. Its very different from the original John Aspinall concept but that's the way things have gone here.
Last edited:
Johnny Morris.
Well-Known Member
Well, after recently making my third visit to Port Lympne, i had made up my mind not to do the african experience next time. It was a bit wet and the driver seemed to be in a rush, so photography was out of the question. So if it's going to be mostly on the trucks i can't see me rushing back.
The whole idea about trying to differentiate and keep the parks more seperate is again against the whole aspinall philosophy,
The zoos were always seen together, as such they were basically one zoo, and only exists because Aspinall needed more space. This public fueled venture is i think far too against the key features of the Park, the whole privacy aspect, the joy of seeing the animals for a split second.
I think trying to seperate the Parks is a very sad move, aswell as this Safari Park movement, Zambar is right, Aspinall was not a huge fan of the Safari Park philosophy at all.
Lets hope not too much is lost in this venture!
The zoos were always seen together, as such they were basically one zoo, and only exists because Aspinall needed more space. This public fueled venture is i think far too against the key features of the Park, the whole privacy aspect, the joy of seeing the animals for a split second.
I think trying to seperate the Parks is a very sad move, aswell as this Safari Park movement, Zambar is right, Aspinall was not a huge fan of the Safari Park philosophy at all.
Lets hope not too much is lost in this venture!
I dont like this idea either to be honest! The advantage of going to the aspinall collections (port lympne in particular) is that there is enough space to avoid the screaming children and crowds, and as mentioned the fact that you cannot choose to stop and watch a a species at your leisure surely takes away from the experience.
As long as i can get to the gorillas and brown hyena on foot things may not be so bad.
As long as i can get to the gorillas and brown hyena on foot things may not be so bad.
johnstoni
Well-Known Member
I would forgive this particular exercise if the park added a visitor walking track round the perimeter of the safari reserves (I'm not ashamed to have a sense of having a stake in the place, I grew up with PL as my local zoo, my concept of what a zoo is was formed there). A remote walking track round the outside wouldn't be used by the same people who wish to take a noisy, crowded, truck to get 'up close'. For me, 'up close' is more about quiet moments of connection with animals, be it over across fences, without groups of shouting visitors or a keeper with a microphone headset giving a talk.
I will miss the romantic idealism of the place, and the luxury of having such amazing species to yourself on some afternoons, you and whoever you're with can be the only people in sight for most of your visit. I am always humbled when a group of antelope or deer notice you but are not startled even though before you appeared there were no visitors watching them, regardless of how uneventful it is for them.
I'd much rather they spent £1m on a new elephant house. However, I assume this is investment for survival, with a new elephant house made possible if visitor numbers increase. But I am surprised if market research has shown the park that more safari trucks are a good idea. While I think people like the idea of a safari, they'd much rather tolerate seeing other peoples' cars if it means they get to glide along on smooth tarmac in their own vehicle.
I wonder why the casinos stopped being able to prop up the parks as they were? I always assumed they would cover the expenses of the two zoos.
I will miss the romantic idealism of the place, and the luxury of having such amazing species to yourself on some afternoons, you and whoever you're with can be the only people in sight for most of your visit. I am always humbled when a group of antelope or deer notice you but are not startled even though before you appeared there were no visitors watching them, regardless of how uneventful it is for them.
I'd much rather they spent £1m on a new elephant house. However, I assume this is investment for survival, with a new elephant house made possible if visitor numbers increase. But I am surprised if market research has shown the park that more safari trucks are a good idea. While I think people like the idea of a safari, they'd much rather tolerate seeing other peoples' cars if it means they get to glide along on smooth tarmac in their own vehicle.
I wonder why the casinos stopped being able to prop up the parks as they were? I always assumed they would cover the expenses of the two zoos.
I read recently that the casinos have been losing millions of pounds in recent years so it would seem there is no question of any funding from them . The losses from the parks are presumably covered from whatever is left in the pot in the Foundation that JA set up .
My guess would be that the large number of Black Rhino paddocks which use up a sizeable portion of the Park, will stay as they are. The trucks will presumably just drive past or even through some of these. Same for the Elephants (around). As it says they will be taking down some of the fences longerterm, I can see eventually an 'Asian' area being developed too, probably moving the Axis, Blackbuck, etc from the existing African area where they are incorrect anyway and adding Sambar, Swamp deer, Nilgai etc, perhaps the water buffalo also? That would give another big 'reserves' like the African one. Maybe another for the Bison? Any fresh species to come in? We will see.
I am not sure how visitors(even general families) will take to having to ride in trucks to view most of the Park's major animals from now on.
Last edited:
Most of my thoughts echo those already posted. I can only really add/expand on the following:
1. Port Lympne had to do something to survive financially and differentiate itself from Howletts (there must be a lot of people who've been to one and not bothered with the other because they were expecting, rightly or wrongly, more of the same). Whether this strategy works only time will tell but it'll be interesting witnessing the transition;
2. It is intriguing how a collection with significant strengths in felines and primates, which don't really translate easily to safari parks, will manage the transformation;
3. It's notable that for residents of large swathes of London and Kent (that's a lot of people) this will be the nearest and easiest to get to "safari park";
4. I'm not sure it will be a safari park in the usual sense and, as others have stated, I'm not sure how the public will take to this "hybrid" (for want of a better term). It'll be interesting to see what price structure they're hoping to impose;
5. If it disappears I'll really miss the almost unique sense of aloneness and privilege (almost like you're trespassing in someone's private collection) that could be achieved when wandering and not seeing any other people for ages;
6. If the option to wander the whole area disappears we'll lose probably the UK's toughest zoo challenge and the satisfaction/pride of "doing" the whole of Port Lympne. How will future UK zoo nerds prove their mettle
All said I'm hoping the changes work for the place, the Aspinall collections deserve to survive and thrive given their contribution (to zoos, animals and visitors) over the years.
1. Port Lympne had to do something to survive financially and differentiate itself from Howletts (there must be a lot of people who've been to one and not bothered with the other because they were expecting, rightly or wrongly, more of the same). Whether this strategy works only time will tell but it'll be interesting witnessing the transition;
2. It is intriguing how a collection with significant strengths in felines and primates, which don't really translate easily to safari parks, will manage the transformation;
3. It's notable that for residents of large swathes of London and Kent (that's a lot of people) this will be the nearest and easiest to get to "safari park";
4. I'm not sure it will be a safari park in the usual sense and, as others have stated, I'm not sure how the public will take to this "hybrid" (for want of a better term). It'll be interesting to see what price structure they're hoping to impose;
5. If it disappears I'll really miss the almost unique sense of aloneness and privilege (almost like you're trespassing in someone's private collection) that could be achieved when wandering and not seeing any other people for ages;
6. If the option to wander the whole area disappears we'll lose probably the UK's toughest zoo challenge and the satisfaction/pride of "doing" the whole of Port Lympne. How will future UK zoo nerds prove their mettle
All said I'm hoping the changes work for the place, the Aspinall collections deserve to survive and thrive given their contribution (to zoos, animals and visitors) over the years.
I hear that the aspinall collection is currently loss making and sadly i do have serious concerns about its medium/long term viability. I love port lympne, especially wandering around the hidden paths south of the mansion, but I appreciate that whilst Im a keen walker, many people are not and, as such, much of the park is currently inaccessible to a lot of visitors (who pay A LOT of money to go in). If this latest plan to turn 500 acres of it into a safari enable brings in more publicity and more visitors, Im all for it. However, have serious reservations about this development:
1) It isnt really going to be a safari, is it? the 'hybrid' term being floated here is correct, as youll queue, then be bussed around. When i visited in august, the queues for the african safari bit were horrendous, and now the majority of the site will require boarding a bus/lorry/jeep to tour round. Visitors will leave furious if they spend 90% of their visit in a queue - the return visit rate will be very low.
2) Additionally, black rhino, the collections' flag ship stock, live mostly solitarily, so im guessing that youll be driven through a serious of paddocks each with only one or two animals in. so those green paddocks may soon be bisected by roads. awesome, a nice 'green' image being portrayed there, then.
3) for a park that has much success in primates and cats, how will these be incorporated into a safari?
4) i worry that this large wild animal park, will essentially become a theme park now and not a conservation centre focussing on breeding. This expensive development will improve the visitor experience, but proabaly worsen the animals'.
I dont know much about the backgrounds or internal workings of the parks, but I think a few serious mistakes have been made in recent years that may have contributed to its loss making. Firstly, while so much animals live in substandard accomodation, why were new animals being bought in? binturongs, black footed cats, north chinese leopards (that live in a tiny cage in the far corner of howletts), francois langurs etc etc? If they were loss making, they should have use they vacant space to downsize to focus on their core species.
but better still, the african experience covers 100acres - bigger then howletts. The distance between the 2 zoos is not huge. I am certain that the best thing to do to reduce costs woudl have been to consolidate at port lymone where they literally had acres of space. Howletts could have been run as back up facility, shut to the public (much like hollywood tower is to bristol zoo at present). there are lots of vacant enclosures around lympne and with good planning, they could have fitted most of the collection into lympne with excess groups held off show at howletts. The continue to house duplicate species across the 2 parks, especially deer, some of which are not endangered, which again dilutes resources and creates inefficiency in the system. What do others think?
1) It isnt really going to be a safari, is it? the 'hybrid' term being floated here is correct, as youll queue, then be bussed around. When i visited in august, the queues for the african safari bit were horrendous, and now the majority of the site will require boarding a bus/lorry/jeep to tour round. Visitors will leave furious if they spend 90% of their visit in a queue - the return visit rate will be very low.
2) Additionally, black rhino, the collections' flag ship stock, live mostly solitarily, so im guessing that youll be driven through a serious of paddocks each with only one or two animals in. so those green paddocks may soon be bisected by roads. awesome, a nice 'green' image being portrayed there, then.
3) for a park that has much success in primates and cats, how will these be incorporated into a safari?
4) i worry that this large wild animal park, will essentially become a theme park now and not a conservation centre focussing on breeding. This expensive development will improve the visitor experience, but proabaly worsen the animals'.
I dont know much about the backgrounds or internal workings of the parks, but I think a few serious mistakes have been made in recent years that may have contributed to its loss making. Firstly, while so much animals live in substandard accomodation, why were new animals being bought in? binturongs, black footed cats, north chinese leopards (that live in a tiny cage in the far corner of howletts), francois langurs etc etc? If they were loss making, they should have use they vacant space to downsize to focus on their core species.
but better still, the african experience covers 100acres - bigger then howletts. The distance between the 2 zoos is not huge. I am certain that the best thing to do to reduce costs woudl have been to consolidate at port lymone where they literally had acres of space. Howletts could have been run as back up facility, shut to the public (much like hollywood tower is to bristol zoo at present). there are lots of vacant enclosures around lympne and with good planning, they could have fitted most of the collection into lympne with excess groups held off show at howletts. The continue to house duplicate species across the 2 parks, especially deer, some of which are not endangered, which again dilutes resources and creates inefficiency in the system. What do others think?
I think you are correct in your assessment of some of the problems which will arise logistically. In the case of the rhino paddocks, the rhinos will still be kept as before, I am sure, so the safari will involve driving through, or around several enclosures containing only the odd animal. Maybe the baboon/rhino paddock will be an exception but probably the lorries couldn't even go in this one as there would be direct contat problems.
The queuing system sounds horrendous. I don't know how they will get over that- they will have to put on yet more lorries at busy times. The problems of cost versus value for money are another issue. Presumbly the reason for these changes is because they have had a lot of complaints from people who feel shortchanged when having paid the entrance fee, they then found it impossible to get around the whole park to see everything, or have spent too much time queuing for the African Safari section. Also the new plan seems like an 'economy' version of a Safari Park- missing will be the drive-through Big Cat or Monkey reserves for example, as they can obviously only be achieved using private cars.
The Primates/Gorillas/Large and Small cats/carnivores are mostly on the western/wooded side of the park and presume this is the 100 acres that will still have pedestrian access. It seems likely to be the only part of Port Lympne some people on here(myself included) are likely to visit in the future, except maybe on quiet days.
I agree about the state of some Housing-particularly the Elephant barns and general housing- it isn't very good. I think they have always pushed forward with acquiring new species to avoid being seen to stand still. But I agree there's a bigger discrepancy now in the standards of enclosures and some, particularly the Elephants, are in need of improvements made.
To close Howletts to the public would surely result in a considerable loss of revenue. Also some of the most expensive constructions and enclosures there- such as the Gorilla and Elephant housing, couldn't be transferred to Port Lympne so they couldn't just move and centralise their stocks of these animals at Port Lympne.
But as the 'season' approaches it will be interesting to see exactly how this all pans out and how visitors take to the new layout.
The queuing system sounds horrendous. I don't know how they will get over that- they will have to put on yet more lorries at busy times. The problems of cost versus value for money are another issue. Presumbly the reason for these changes is because they have had a lot of complaints from people who feel shortchanged when having paid the entrance fee, they then found it impossible to get around the whole park to see everything, or have spent too much time queuing for the African Safari section. Also the new plan seems like an 'economy' version of a Safari Park- missing will be the drive-through Big Cat or Monkey reserves for example, as they can obviously only be achieved using private cars.
The Primates/Gorillas/Large and Small cats/carnivores are mostly on the western/wooded side of the park and presume this is the 100 acres that will still have pedestrian access. It seems likely to be the only part of Port Lympne some people on here(myself included) are likely to visit in the future, except maybe on quiet days.
I agree about the state of some Housing-particularly the Elephant barns and general housing- it isn't very good. I think they have always pushed forward with acquiring new species to avoid being seen to stand still. But I agree there's a bigger discrepancy now in the standards of enclosures and some, particularly the Elephants, are in need of improvements made.
To close Howletts to the public would surely result in a considerable loss of revenue. Also some of the most expensive constructions and enclosures there- such as the Gorilla and Elephant housing, couldn't be transferred to Port Lympne so they couldn't just move and centralise their stocks of these animals at Port Lympne.
But as the 'season' approaches it will be interesting to see exactly how this all pans out and how visitors take to the new layout.
Around 5 - 10 years ago i remember hearing that the two parks between them loose £2million per annum, probably more like double now.
So if the changes to the park are required to sustain the aspinall foundation then one will have to accept them.
Will miss the old place, will have to pay a visit before work proceeds too far.
So if the changes to the park are required to sustain the aspinall foundation then one will have to accept them.
Will miss the old place, will have to pay a visit before work proceeds too far.
Gentle Giant
Well-Known Member
"A Kent animal park is set to undergo a £1m upgrade which will see its African exhibit expanded.
The project at Port Lympne Wild Animal Park involves changes to its African Experience, which was launched in 2005.
It will increase its safari area from 100 acres to 500, and cut the area to explore on foot from 500 to 100 acres".
Wasn't the point of asian antelope in the "african experience" to fill up space?. It suggests in the article that it will be mainly the african experience growing? So going on the theory that management wanted for animals in the "experience to make it full" they will now need to bring 5X the amount of hoofstock?
The project at Port Lympne Wild Animal Park involves changes to its African Experience, which was launched in 2005.
It will increase its safari area from 100 acres to 500, and cut the area to explore on foot from 500 to 100 acres".
Wasn't the point of asian antelope in the "african experience" to fill up space?. It suggests in the article that it will be mainly the african experience growing? So going on the theory that management wanted for animals in the "experience to make it full" they will now need to bring 5X the amount of hoofstock?
Instead of travelling to Africa to see wild animals, when most people cannot afford to travel abroad at the moment. They probably would be wanting similar with San Diego Safari Park which is successful with visitors. It could make a profit which would be ploughed back into Aspinall's zoos.