What are the "must see" zoos in the UK?

[Shorts]

I like to see exhibits where mixed species are like that you would expect to see if you went on a safari to S Africa or Kenya

Like the Bactrian Camels, Barbary Sheep, Fallow Deer and Banteng at West Midlands More seriously, I see where you coming from but in reality a lot of mixed species exhibits are not really geographically correct and mix animals from considerably different environments. That said, I like a mixed savannah display (Suffolk's is particularly nice).

Many rhino's in zoos do not get the opportunity to run properly

I'm not sure that's really correct. Off the top of my head I can only think of one zoo in the UK where Rhino's don't have pretty spacious enclosures

 

[Tim Brown]

I think David Brown would have to choose on the basis of time..maybe even personal zoological preference - for instance Shorts misses out Britains largest collection of mammals[Colchester] and if David likes birds and/or reptiles Howletts is going to be pretty dissapointing.Like most americans he will probably drive otherwise the UK will be tough going,and if he drives then Port Lympne and Wildwood come into the picture far easier than going all the way to Scotland[where again reptiles and to a certain extent birds,will be in short supply]..basically David if you are comparing with San Diego,Los Angeles even San Francisco [broad vertebrate collections] then its Chester,London perhaps Colchester.

 

[Nanook]

In my view it is important to visit as many zoos as possible - good or bad.
In fact I often make it my mission to visit "bad zoos" just to see for myself , not to give them my custom as such but simply out of my own curiosity. It is also a very good thing to witness the bad to make you truly appreciate the good. To put it all into perspective , to compare ,to learn and move forward.
I don`t have a top ten of my favourite zoos , some I like more than others for sure, for various reasons, I just visit as many as I can, when I can , I still get the same thrill of excitment every time when visiting ANY zoo, the same as I have always done, since a child.

 

[Maguari]

I'm sure Dudley will love being called a part of Birmingham

That was my first thought as well. I have relatives in the Black Country and friends from Birmingham. Neither appreciate being mixed up!

 

[Johnny Morris.]

In my view it is important to visit as many zoos as possible - good or bad.
In fact I often make it my mission to visit "bad zoos" just to see for myself , not to give them my custom as such but simply out of my own curiosity. It is also a very good thing to witness the bad to make you truly appreciate the good. To put it all into perspective , to compare ,to learn and move forward.
I don`t have a top ten of my favourite zoos , some I like more than others for sure, for various reasons, I just visit as many as I can, when I can , I still get the same thrill of excitment every time when visiting ANY zoo, the same as I have always done, since a child.

That sums me up too. Some of the "must see" zoos mentioned in this thread, didn't do lot to excite me, so it's dificult to make a list for someone else to see. I have also never visited another zoo outside of the UK, so not sure what people from other countries consider as a worthwhile zoo to visit

 

[IanRRobinson]

Any selection is going to be a matter of personal taste.

If you're into history, then London, Bristol, Dudley and Edinburgh are "musts". If you are into ungulates, Marwell and Whipsnade will stand out. If you want to see bonobos, then Twycross is the only site in the UK or Republic of Ireland.

Personally, I would say that anyone from California is unlikely to be massively impressed by any UK/Irish aquarium or collections of birds or ungulates. Primates, especially lemurs and callitrichids, are another matter. On that basis Linton, Hamerton, Banham and Kessingland are probably worth a look at. These are all also advantageous in being based in East Anglia, where Titchwell, Cley, Minsmere and Hickling Broad all offer good birdingat any time of year.

The time of year is also an important consideration. The Scottish Highlands between August and March won't offer too many birds inland, other than eagles, and again a Californian would be more likely to be familiar with golden eagles than most. From April to mid June, however, Speyside would be essential. And if the time is available, an attempt to get St Kilda, one of the planet's great seabird islands and sole home to a wren taxon that might just be a full species would be a venture worth undertaking.

One final thought; the Moray Firth is home to a resident population of very big bottle-nosed dolphins, and North Norfolk will give the chance to combine good birding with grey seals, a North Atlantic species that I don't think is kept in any of the bigger US collections.

 

[DavidBrown]

Any selection is going to be a matter of personal taste.

If you're into history, then London, Bristol, Dudley and Edinburgh are "musts". If you are into ungulates, Marwell and Whipsnade will stand out. If you want to see bonobos, then Twycross is the only site in the UK or Republic of Ireland.

Personally, I would say that anyone from California is unlikely to be massively impressed by any UK/Irish aquarium or collections of birds or ungulates. Primates, especially lemurs and callitrichids, are another matter. On that basis Linton, Hamerton, Banham and Kessingland are probably worth a look at. These are all also advantageous in being based in East Anglia, where Titchwell, Cley, Minsmere and Hickling Broad all offer good birdingat any time of year.

The time of year is also an important consideration. The Scottish Highlands between August and March won't offer too many birds inland, other than eagles, and again a Californian would be more likely to be familiar with golden eagles than most. From April to mid June, however, Speyside would be essential. And if the time is available, an attempt to get St Kilda, one of the planet's great seabird islands and sole home to a wren taxon that might just be a full species would be a venture worth undertaking.

One final thought; the Moray Firth is home to a resident population of very big bottle-nosed dolphins, and North Norfolk will give the chance to combine good birding with grey seals, a North Atlantic species that I don't think is kept in any of the bigger US collections.

Thanks for your very detailed and helpful answer Ian. I especially appreciate the birding suggestions. It looks like there are some really good places to see Atlantic seabirds that don't live in my corner of the world.

 

[IanRRobinson]

Another good area for seabirds, David, is Pembrokeshire (SW Wales).

It's easier to get there from London, and you'll find red-billed choughs there, as well as having a better chance of peregrines than the NW Highlands. Mid Wales has loads of red kites, although happily these can be seen in quite a few areas of Britain now.

Going back to zoos: Twycross is the top place for primates on one site in the UK, although it's not to everyone's taste. And Howletts has some Indonesian primates (Moloch gibbon, grizzled langur, Heck's macaque) that are very scarce in captivity.

 

[trixie]

I agree with IR about the time of year all though cheaper to get in some animals are kept inside because of the cold so you don't always see them out.

 

[Pootle]

.I couldnt disagree with Pootle more when he says we are a " small country"-we are in area but not in terms of population QUOTE]

Tim,

I was replying to David from the US in reference to geographic area only. The point I was getting across was that despite our small size (area only) we have a lot of zoos in that area compared to the number of zoos in the US where the question asker lives. In terms of population we are probably bulging at the seems a bit too much for my liking.

As for the rest we can happily agree to disagree.

However your mention of predators, accurate vegetation etc, did make me smile, I would have thought that you should have clearly understood my reasoning/opinion without throwing something like that in the mixer to be honest.....

Bottom line is you dont like what I like, that's the way it is here this time, each to their own eh Tim.

 

[Tim Brown]

Pootle of course i understand ,i only made the point about predators and other things to emphasise that mixed exhibits in zoos are ,by their nature[no pun intended], very dilute by comparison with the wild and always zoogeographically inaccurate.Quite why the more accurate science ot taxonomy is falling out of fashion in zoos i dont know.

 

[Pootle]

Yes, dilute to the wild, but I do appreciate the 'effort' personally when this is attempted.

Here is something we appear to agree on - the loss of the science of taxonomy in zoos. Maybe it is not seen as a crowd drawer (hence money maker) these days, what ever, it has vitually gone. I am not an ecologist, but did study the subject in depth and more knowledge about taxonomy in zoos would 'put things in their place' for many visitors without the knowledge already.

Anyone interested in the taxonomy of species would learn plenty from a trip to The Natural History or Liverpool Museum (probably loads more but these two I can personally account for).

Agreed, pity it is falling away from zoos.

 

[Dassie rat]

Pootle, perhaps the best museum for mammal taxonomy in the UK is the Tring Museum in Hertfordshire. In the Czech Republic, Prague's Narodni Museum also has a good taxonomic collection. The Zoological Museum in Bonn is also quite good. Some other museums have broken up their taxonomic collections. I suspect this is because relatively few visitors are interested in taxonomy, but I cringe when insect collections become 'Creepy Crawlies'.

 

[SHAVINGTONZOO]

Following up on some points already made I too find contemporary British collections a bit disappointing.

"When I was a lad" the 'big' collections [Regents Park, Chester, Belle Vue, Bristol] offered a huge range of species. It's become known, disparagingly, as a "stamp collection mentality" but it did offer the visitor an opportunity to see a wonderful variety of wonderful creatures. The housing was often poor, but there was plenty to see!

Smaller collections were either pale versions of the bigger zoos, and generally didn't last long, or offered some sort of special attraction - either in the collection (e.g. Twycross and its primates) or setting (e.g. Colwyn Bay).

Today the larger collections now offer a greatly slimmed-down offering, and the smaller collections offer much the same. But less.

Partly - largely ?- this is perhaps the result of changes in animal availability. Up to the early 70s, with fairly loose regulation of animal trade, all sorts of interesting things could turn up. Now, with most animals (mammals especially) being captive-bred then - by definition - the species variety is diminished.

Oh for a properly large collection (by which I mean 100+ mammal species, and 200+ birds) or an outstanding special collection.

 

[SHAVINGTONZOO]

But to get back on-topic

If it's a short visit I'd opt for:

Regent's Park (where it all started), Whipsnade (which reflects the 1930s style post Hagenbeck), and Marwell or Port Lympne/Howletts (post 1960 conservation-era collections). They have the added advantage of being close together!

If you have a little longer then : Chester (perhaps taking in Twycross for its primates en route.

And if you carried out such a tour I'd be interested to hear your views on the health and significance of our collections.

 

[Bele]

A couple of smaller collections that do have an unusual variety of species - Hamerton and Exmoor .

 

[Shorts]

A couple of smaller collections that do have an unusual variety of species - Hamerton and Exmoor .

There's also Five Sisters which has quite a few odd small mammals on display. Wingham's also got a few oddments but is seemingly in a transition period so who knows how it will end up? I've not been but apparently the British Wildlife Centre is very good and has a fair amount of seldom seen species. Finally, the International Bird of Prey Centre (Newent) has a fantastic collection. I'm sure there's a few more I've overlooked. The gems are out there if you search a bit.

 

[Dassie rat]

I agree with Shavington Zoo. There has been a general reduction in zoo collections. I don't like seeing large animals in cramped conditions. A few months ago, I went to Plzen Zoo and saw a pair of 'Barbary lions' in the Small Mammal House. The enclosure was little longer than the length of one of the animals and the height was about twice the shoulder height. I only hope the lions were being kept here temporarily, as it was beyond being cramped. When the male ostrich stretched his wings, he could just about reach to the enclosure's boundaries. A blesbok was also cramped. Despite this, Plzen has one of the largest collections of animal species in the world and has several unusual species. In the last 20 years, the number of mammal species has gone up from about 50 to 240. Compare this with London, where the number has fallen from 210 to 70 in 50 years. There has been a similar trend in other zoos.

One of the problems is that zoos tend to think that most visitors want to see large ABC animals, rather than obscure animals, which could be kept in natural enclosures and released into the wild. Many anti-zoo organisations compare the size of a zoo enclosure with the home range of a wild animal. What they seem to forget is that a predator requires a large home range to find prey. If its food is provided, dead, on a regular basis, it needs an enclosure that is big enough to exercise in (one problem of some older zoos was overweight animals that didn't exercise), but it doesn't need to match the home range. Building larger enclosures is often done for aesthetic, architectural and/or monetary reasons, rather than to benefit the animals.

Another deceit is the idea that the large ABC animals must breed to save the species from extinction. Relatively few large animal species have been bred in zoos and released iinto the wild. Many of the programmes have been very expensive. Most of the large ABC animals are bred to attract visitors and increase profits, not for conservation purposes. It would be better if zoos raised money to save species in the wild, rather than build new enclosures. I visited Shepreth Wildlife Park last year and I recommend it for the fact that it encourages people to get involved with conservation organisations. I had an interesting talk with one of the workers in the Education Department and I was impressed by her dedication and knowledge. Shepreth also has a collection of species that used to be common in British zoos, but are now relatively scarce. I was also impressed with the information about the Highland Wildlife Park, where an enclosure has been refurbished for £85. It's a pity some zoos are still spending millions of pounds in a time of austerity. Well done to Doug Richardson.

 

[sooty mangabey]

A few months ago, I went to Plzen Zoo and saw a pair of 'Barbary lions' in the Small Mammal House. The enclosure was little longer than the length of one of the animals and the height was about twice the shoulder height. I only hope the lions were being kept here temporarily, as it was beyond being cramped. When the male ostrich stretched his wings, he could just about reach to the enclosure's boundaries. A blesbok was also cramped.

The lions at Plzen have access to a reasonable (but not enormous) outside area. I presume you saw them in their bedroom (where slender mongooses are also housed). The blesbok and ostrich are amongst the species which share the rather beautiful African area. if they were kept separate, I presume this was for good animal management reasons.

One of the problems is that zoos tend to think that most visitors want to see large ABC animals, rather than obscure animals, which could be kept in natural enclosures and released into the wild.

I'm not sure your analysis is correct - in Britain at least. The number of ABC animals that are absent from London Zoo is startling. The same is true of most of our bigger collections. I don't think it is any surprise that the one zoo at which you can see lions, tigers, rhinos, chimps, crocodiles, zebras, giraffes, bears, hyenas, elephants and so on - Colchester - is massively popular. And they also bring in the sort of 'choice' species that 99% of the public might not appreciate.

 

[Dassie rat]

The lions at Plzen have access to a reasonable (but not enormous) outside area. I presume you saw them in their bedroom (where slender mongooses are also housed). The blesbok and ostrich are amongst the species which share the rather beautiful African area. if they were kept separate, I presume this was for good animal management reasons.

I'm not sure your analysis is correct - in Britain at least. The number of ABC animals that are absent from London Zoo is startling. The same is true of most of our bigger collections. I don't think it is any surprise that the one zoo at which you can see lions, tigers, rhinos, chimps, crocodiles, zebras, giraffes, bears, hyenas, elephants and so on - Colchester - is massively popular. And they also bring in the sort of 'choice' species that 99% of the public might not appreciate.

I went to Plzen in March before the start of the main season and I guess that the animals were housed in their winter quarters. Despite this, the accommodation was cramped and a friend of mine, who belongs to CAPS, complained about the lions. It would probably be better to keep them off show rather than in their very cramped 'bedroom', even though they didn't seem concerned about the lack of space.

I agree with Sooty Mangabey and I'm sorry for the misinformation. I should have said 'several zoos', rather than just 'zoos.' I went to Colchester a few weeks ago and it was good to see the smooth-coated otters and a bearded saki for the first time in the UK. I've never really thought of hyenas as being ABC animals, but I accept that many zoos no longer keep elephants and that some zoos manage to get by with few, if any, ABC animals. I just feel it's a shame when a zoo cuts down the number of species to provide space for a large and, usually ABC, species that has already been saved from extinction and which will never return to the wild.