ZSL London Zoo Tiger HQ at ZSL London Zoo

[stulch]

They do have the option though to split this new enclosure as per the plans and there is also an off show area.

Is there even the option to use the old enclosure in some way until that gets re-developed?

I would just be surprised if they built this enclosure with the intention of breeding and more tigers and then they just put an unbreeding pair in it.

After all, one of the reasons for this new enclosure was to comply with the previous report and be able to split tigers and they have at least three areas for adult tigers don't they?

 

[johnstoni.]

They do have the option though to split this new enclosure as per the plans and there is also an off show area.

Yes, they do have the option to split a pair of tigers, that is the main reason the zoo is compelled to build a new exhibit, but the plans only really include two large outdoor enclosures.

Is there even the option to use the old enclosure in some way until that gets re-developed?

Once the new one opens, I would be more than surprised if they retained any tigers in the current exhibit....it would confuse visitors and would may the current conditions look even less spacious when seen in contrast to the new exhibit.

I would just be surprised if they built this enclosure with the intention of breeding and more tigers and then they just put an unbreeding pair in it.

Well, Raika and Lumpur are are 16 and 14 respectively, by the time the exhibit is complete they will be getting on in tiger years, and I doubt they would have more than a couple of years in the new exhibit.

After all, one of the reasons for this new enclosure was to comply with the previous report and be able to split tigers and they have at least three areas for adult tigers don't they?

I wouldn't count the offshow area as sufficiently large to house a third, adult tiger, even if it was very old.

 

[stulch]

Tiger SOS

Just a few things I've found / found out recently:-

On the Westminster Council planning website it now states an actual committee date of Thursday 27th October

11/04644/FULL | Creation of new Sumatran Tiger enclosure and alteration to two adjoining buildings. | Outer Circle Regents Park London NW1

Two or three weeks ago I was sent an A4 double-sided supporters briefing on Tiger SOS in which it said ZSL has raised £2.3 million to invest in Tiger SOS but needs to raise £1.3 million more (it included a form for donations and the option of a tiger pawprint for a large donation)

Tiger Pawprints

Posted on the official website Thursday 6 October 2011:-

Tigers meet their likeness in limited edition print - News - ZSL London Zoo - ZSL

Not new or recently found, but other information:-

Get involved

 

[kiang]

Planning permission has been officially granted.

London Zoo (ZSL) get green light for extension to tiger enclosure | West End Extra

 

[Pacu]

Not the most accurate of reports is it; they clearly think it is an extension to the current enclosure.

 

[IanRRobinson]

Not the most accurate of reports is it; they clearly think it is an extension to the current enclosure.

Well, I wish it was...

If the flamingos and waterfowl were moved to a new site on Barclay Court (and so many zoos do have a flamingo pool in sight of their restaurant) then the tigers could have access to Three Island Pond. The flamingo house is an integral part of the Lion Terraces.

A very large chunk of money would then be made available to fund habitat protection in Sumatra....

 

[Dassie rat]

If ZSL moved out the Amur tigers from Whipsnade, the Sumatran tigers could move into a larger enclosure.

When I attended the launch, I thought the figures were round the wrong way. ZSL should be raising £3 million to save tigers and other animals in Sumatra, rather than to increase the area for an animal that is over-represented in captivity and won't be returned to the wild. There are 3 times as many captive Sumatran tigers as are needed to save the subspecies. The Sumatran tiger is safe, but there are thousands of species that aren't.

 

[IanRRobinson]

If ZSL moved out the Amur tigers from Whipsnade, the Sumatran tigers could move into a larger enclosure.

When I attended the launch, I thought the figures were round the wrong way. ZSL should be raising £3 million to save tigers and other animals in Sumatra, rather than to increase the area for an animal that is over-represented in captivity and won't be returned to the wild. There are 3 times as many captive Sumatran tigers as are needed to save the subspecies. The Sumatran tiger is safe, but there are thousands of species that aren't.

I admire so much of what you say, dassierat; it is based on deep zoological knowledge and deep knowledge of RP. Only Tim May of regular posters compares to you in these respects.

BUT....RP is already dangerously light on charismatic megafauna. Hateful term, but we know what it means. If millions wanted to see fossa, marbled polecat, aardwolf and jaguarundi then the Rare Species Conservation Centre would still be in being. Keeping lions, tigers and (IMHO) another big cat at RP has to be achieved for ZSL to get the revenues from the site its conservation work needs.

I just feel that the big cat accommodation is capable of a much cheaper revamp than is being proposed.

Another thread going is talking about the DVD release of "The Ark". Those of us old enough to remember the horrible days of 1991 will remember how we were promised a break from the past with its grandiose conceptual buildings, and instead would have a simpler approach involving the re-use of existing structures.

To quote Edmund Burke , "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

 

[Dassie rat]

Thanks Ian for your kind comments. I remember how good you and Tim were in the London Zoo quizzes. I can understand that most visitors to London Zoo wish to see popular animals and aren't bothered about obscure animals, but I just wish that the 'Tiger Project' had been more honest. I've just watched the Louis Theroux programme and I think some of the animal keepers were more honest, although I'm always dubious about people who say that their animals enjoy life in captivity, especially when some aspects of body language indicate otherwise. I remember an argument between Clinton Keeling and Doug Richardson at a zoo talk at London Zoo. Basically, Keeling said that big cats didn't need large enclosures, as they didn't need to hunt. Richardson said that natural enclosures enabled big cats to show more of their natural behaviour. At least one of the keepers on Theroux's programme said that tigers didn't want to roam over large areas. I wonder if the demand for larger cat enclosures are more of a sop to visitors, rather than an advantage for cats. A visitor to Tanzania said that the lions were boring, as they spend most of their time doing nothing. Perhaps enclosure enrichment, which was one of the advantages of Glasgow Zoo, is the way forward, rather than massive, expensive enclosures, leading to fewer species being conserved.

If London has to keep tigers, I would have thought Malayan or North Indochinese tigers would be preferable, but there are so many species of small cat that are endangered in the wild and have small captive populations, that I can't really see the point, apart from financial reasons. After all, how many visitors are really interested in which tiger subspecies are kept. Colin Tudge wrote "A tiger is a tiger is a tiger" and his knowledge of captive animals is admirable. I would still prefer a collection to save tigers and other animals in the wild, rather than breding an over-represented species that will not be returned to the wild.

 

[sooty mangabey]

If the flamingos and waterfowl were moved to a new site on Barclay Court (and so many zoos do have a flamingo pool in sight of their restaurant) then the tigers could have access to Three Island Pond. The flamingo house is an integral part of the Lion Terraces.

Ian - much as I enjoy your posts, would it be fair to say that, no matter what happened at London Zoo, you'd be critical of it? While I share the opinion that the path followed by the zoo over the past two decades has not always been the right one, there are good things going on there - a rate of development that would have been inconceivable not so long ago with some impressive things happening...

A very large chunk of money would then be made available to fund habitat protection in Sumatra....

...but by this line of reasoning, nothing much would ever get built in zoos because the money could be spent on in-situ conservation. Which it could, of course, but would the money exist were it not for the zoo's being a functioning, breathing place with wild animals that one can pay money to go and see? And three million quid - it's not exactly a fortune, is it?

I just feel that the big cat accommodation is capable of a much cheaper revamp than is being proposed.

If this was just a revamp, then I'm sure it could be done more cheaply. But the tiger enclosure needs more than just a revamp. It simply doesn't work - and never has - as a place in which to display large cats to the public. It provides really poor viewing, and is truly ugly. It would require fundamental reworking to become acceptable.

Another thread going is talking about the DVD release of "The Ark". Those of us old enough to remember the horrible days of 1991 will remember how we were promised a break from the past with its grandiose conceptual buildings, and instead would have a simpler approach involving the re-use of existing structures.

...and to be fair to ZSL, they have, in recent years, been pretty good at 'recycling' buildings (whether or not you like the way that things have turned out). Gorilla Kingdom utilises big chunks of the Sobell Pavilions, for example, while the African Bird Safari has used the old Stork & Ostrich House. And have there really been any of the grandiose, conceptual buildings of which you write since, well, probably the Lion Terraces (1976)? Maybe the Invertebrate House - but that is a decent building, and though expensive the amounts we're talking about are really pretty small when one considers how much any building project costs - particularly in London. Gorilla Kingdom? Has its critics certainly, but - and other opinions are available - it's an attractive use of the space, with problems as much connected to husbandry as to design (possibly).

But - and I say this as someone who really likes Colchester - London can't simply bung up Colchester-style sheds. Forget the planning laws - it just wouldn't be right to have functional utilitarianism in Regent's Park! Things do need to be a bit grander than is the case elsewhere.

I can understand that most visitors to London Zoo wish to see popular animals and aren't bothered about obscure animals, but I just wish that the 'Tiger Project' had been more honest. Perhaps enclosure enrichment, which was one of the advantages of Glasgow Zoo, is the way forward, rather than massive, expensive enclosures, leading to fewer species being conserved.

I think this is a good argument - animals are often held in enclosures bigger than they need to be, so as to appease public sentimentality. But at the same time, an attractive tiger enclosure, highlighting the work that ZSL are doing with this species (and it is that work that makes the Sumatran the only species of tiger that they could possibly countenance keeping) is for the benefit fo visitors as much as it is for the benefit of tigers. Is this not true of 99% of zoo enclosures, ultimately?

If London has to keep tigers, I would have thought Malayan or North Indochinese tigers would be preferable, but there are so many species of small cat that are endangered in the wild and have small captive populations, that I can't really see the point, apart from financial reasons. After all, how many visitors are really interested in which tiger subspecies are kept. Colin Tudge wrote "A tiger is a tiger is a tiger" and his knowledge of captive animals is admirable.

Yes - the average visitor may not appreciate whether the tiger is a Sumatran or a malayan - but they certainly will appreciate that it is a tiger. A 'threatened small cat' just wouldn't do it in the same way! The tiger is an iconic zoo species - and London has few enough of those!

I would still prefer a collection to save tigers and other animals in the wild, rather than breding an over-represented species that will not be returned to the wild.

Of course the wild is better if we are only talking about breeding of endangered species - but is a zoo not about rather more than this? And what species will, really, be returning to the wild anytime soon?

 

[IanRRobinson]

Ian - much as I enjoy your posts, would it be fair to say that, no matter what happened at London Zoo, you'd be critical of it?

A certain primate's comments on a certain park near Winchester spring to mind as a possible analogy....

..but by this line of reasoning, nothing much would ever get built in zoos because the money could be spent on in-situ conservation. Which it could, of course, but would the money exist were it not for the zoo's being a functioning, breathing place with wild animals that one can pay money to go and see? And three million quid - it's not exactly a fortune, is it?

Well, we're in a deep recession. £3 million IS a lot of money to rehouse a species that COULD be housed in glorified tennis court with a pond and a shed, as Howletts have proved over 50 years+. I'm not saying that would be how I'd choose to house tigers, but you take my point. Plus London Zoo visitors already CAN see tigers.

£3 million for (say) giant pandas, black rhino,orang-utans, bonobos, manatees or (God forbid) polar bears would be a different scenario; it would still be a hell of a lot of money, but at least we'd be talking about acquiring another crowd-puller, not merely shifting stock around.

If this was just a revamp, then I'm sure it could be done more cheaply. But the tiger enclosure needs more than just a revamp. It simply doesn't work - and never has - as a place in which to display large cats to the public. It provides really poor viewing, and is truly ugly. It would require fundamental reworking to become acceptable.

Is it really that bad? It's not that small. And a BIGGER tiger enclosure would provide a lot more empty space, because tigers simply don't move around much if they don't have to.

But - and I say this as someone who really likes Colchester - London can't simply bung up Colchester-style sheds. Forget the planning laws - it just wouldn't be right to have functional utilitarianism in Regent's Park! Things do need to be a bit grander than is the case elsewhere.

Until the 1960s, London Zoo WAS largely functional and utilitarian. A perceived need was flagged up by the curator(s), a space was identified, and a building was erected. The Stork and Ostrich House is an example of this mentality, as were the Deer & Cattle Sheds. The Lubetkin oddities of the 1930s stood as a warning which ZSL chose to ignore.

The obsession with making conceptual statements has plagued the RP site for fifty years, and the proposed tiger exhibit is one more example, IMO.

I love London Zoo. It is my first childhood memory, and the enthusiasm I have for the natural world stems more from childhood visits there than to any other factor. Sadly, based upon hard assessment of value-for-money, it has never delivered for my kids. And that upsets me.

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

It is not species shifting, it is providing adequate housing for a breeding pair of Sumatran tigers and the interpretation as well as the in situ focus work ZSL is doing at a mere cost ....

 

[johnstoni.]

- While I am sure there was always a long-term plan for a new tiger enclosure, IMO this exhibit is happening now because ZSL were compelled to improve their tiger facilities following a licensing visit, where inspectors saw injuries on one of the tigers. I don't know whether it was Lumpur or Sarah with the injuries, regardless they had to be separated until Sarah's return to Dudley, meaning one of the tigers was kept in one of the old leopard cages (the one adjacent to the lion house) for a period of time. This cage is not connected to the tiger exhibit and would have required the animal to have been darted in order to be moved the few metres across the terraces. The only other option would have been to have rotated the animals in the one outdoor tiger exhibit. While this may have been acceptable in the past, this was clearly not one of the solutions suggested by the inspectors, who stated that ZSL need a second 'paddock' in order to be able to separate their tigers appropriately.

There are other collections keeping tigers with access to only one outdoor enclosure, I think ZSL were unfortunate that they were inspected during an introduction of two incompatible animals (Raika, then on loan to Dudley, has not had problems with Lumpur before or since in the existing London enclosure), however the breeding record for tigers on the Cat Terraces is, to the best of my knowledge, a single, injured cub removed for hand-rearing (though ultimately a success story), which suggests to me there were others born that didn't survive, so I don't rate the current exhibit as (a) large and/or 'set back' enough for the tigers to retreat from visitors, (b) in a quiet enough area in the zoo, (c) providing sufficient height for vantage points to help the cats feel secure (although the recent interior refurbishment considerably utilised what limited height there is in the exhibit).

- Lower cost options (such as fencing Three Island Pond as a second tiger enclosure in a Howletts-style 'paddock') may not be approved in the planning stages as another criticism by the inspectors was the zoo's perimeter fencing. I would not be surprised if any future large cat exhibit comes with a netted roof, and would attribute that past criticism to the fact the proposed new exhibit also has a netted roof, despite the fact that will have added to the costs. If money really was short, a raised public walkway through the cat terraces, under which chutes connecting some of the enclosures could be built, would make the whole complex completely serviceable for species such as tigers but, as I've listed above, I think there are shortcomings in the design of the Cat Terraces and support a new enclosure for the tigers.

- That said, the plans for the new exhibit are, to me, clearly a full refurbishment of the Stork and Ostrich House, the old sealion stand and wild dog/show animal dens, plus part of the Casson Pavilion (if only part of the exterior). Given this is being fundraised for as a conservation centre, I think it is a little disingenuous to include restoration of old buildings in the budget. Perhaps I've missed something, and this part of the work is being funded differently.

It would not be hard for ZSL to leave the Stork and Ostrich House out of this project, as they did with the giant tortoises, and instead utilise just the anoa and hippo paddocks, and the area to the west of this. I would be surprised if the cost of demolishing the sealion gallery and cages underneath was less than reinventing it as a public walkway/off-exhibit area for tigers. I think ZSL could have created a larger space for their tigers with a Marwell-style pair of enclosures (admittedly perhaps requiring a roof) on this site, with low-impact wooden indoor housing, set back from visitor areas and off-exhibit. However, unlike Marwell, London being an urban zoo tends, to me, to look extremely bleak out-of-season, where the leaves fall and much of the concrete is once again on show....I think the exhibits have to work harder aesthetically precisely because London is an urban zoo. This is where floor-to-ceiling glass corridors, interactive interp and lovingly-restored listed buildings nestled amongst hardy tropical plants really helps, but all that comes at a cost.

 

[IanRRobinson]

- While I am sure there was always a long-term plan for a new tiger enclosure, IMO this exhibit is happening now because ZSL were compelled to improve their tiger facilities following a licensing visit, where inspectors saw injuries on one of the tigers. I don't know whether it was Lumpur or Sarah with the injuries, regardless they had to be separated until Sarah's return to Dudley, meaning one of the tigers was kept in one of the old leopard cages (the one adjacent to the lion house) for a period of time. This cage is not connected to the tiger exhibit and would have required the animal to have been darted in order to be moved the few metres across the terraces. The only other option would have been to have rotated the animals in the one outdoor tiger exhibit. While this may have been acceptable in the past, this was clearly not one of the solutions suggested by the inspectors, who stated that ZSL need a second 'paddock' in order to be able to separate their tigers appropriately.

There are other collections keeping tigers with access to only one outdoor enclosure, I think ZSL were unfortunate that they were inspected during an introduction of two incompatible animals (Raika, then on loan to Dudley, has not had problems with Lumpur before or since in the existing London enclosure), however the breeding record for tigers on the Cat Terraces is, to the best of my knowledge, a single, injured cub removed for hand-rearing (though ultimately a success story), which suggests to me there were others born that didn't survive, so I don't rate the current exhibit as (a) large and/or 'set back' enough for the tigers to retreat from visitors, (b) in a quiet enough area in the zoo, (c) providing sufficient height for vantage points to help the cats feel secure (although the recent interior refurbishment considerably utilised what limited height there is in the exhibit).

- Lower cost options (such as fencing Three Island Pond as a second tiger enclosure in a Howletts-style 'paddock') may not be approved in the planning stages as another criticism by the inspectors was the zoo's perimeter fencing. I would not be surprised if any future large cat exhibit comes with a netted roof, and would attribute that past criticism to the fact the proposed new exhibit also has a netted roof, despite the fact that will have added to the costs. If money really was short, a raised public walkway through the cat terraces, under which chutes connecting some of the enclosures could be built, would make the whole complex completely serviceable for species such as tigers but, as I've listed above, I think there are shortcomings in the design of the Cat Terraces and support a new enclosure for the tigers.

- That said, the plans for the new exhibit are, to me, clearly a full refurbishment of the Stork and Ostrich House, the old sealion stand and wild dog/show animal dens, plus part of the Casson Pavilion (if only part of the exterior). Given this is being fundraised for as a conservation centre, I think it is a little disingenuous to include restoration of old buildings in the budget. Perhaps I've missed something, and this part of the work is being funded differently.

It would not be hard for ZSL to leave the Stork and Ostrich House out of this project, as they did with the giant tortoises, and instead utilise just the anoa and hippo paddocks, and the area to the west of this. I would be surprised if the cost of demolishing the sealion gallery and cages underneath was less than reinventing it as a public walkway/off-exhibit area for tigers. I think ZSL could have created a larger space for their tigers with a Marwell-style pair of enclosures (admittedly perhaps requiring a roof) on this site, with low-impact wooden indoor housing, set back from visitor areas and off-exhibit. However, unlike Marwell, London being an urban zoo tends, to me, to look extremely bleak out-of-season, where the leaves fall and much of the concrete is once again on show....I think the exhibits have to work harder aesthetically precisely because London is an urban zoo. This is where floor-to-ceiling glass corridors, interactive interp and lovingly-restored listed buildings nestled amongst hardy tropical plants really helps, but all that comes at a cost.

Johnstoni, as always you've provided an interesting read. I think that we're not that far away from being in agreement here.

It is a little remembered fact that most of the cats kept on the Lion Terraces (lion, jaguar, leopard at one stage, serval, caracal, ocelot and sand cat) have bred rather well. Clouded leopards are never easily bred and the cheetahs held until 1987 were never kept on a sensible basis.

By contrast, the tigers have been a failure. I was a volunteer at RP between 1994 and 1998 and I know that they never had a decent pair of animals at that time - or indeed beforehand, with one Sumatran female having blocked fallopian tubes and two not being of known pedigree.

I'm not sure that the difficulties of the dozen years since, plus aesthetic judgments, merit £3 million of expenditure. There was a plan to bring in a portion of Three Island Pond to build an overflow tiger enclosure fifteen or so years back. I feel certain that a similar plan would suffice.

£3 million of expenditure might well bring a great deal of the hundred acres at the bottom of Sir Peter's Way at Whipsnade into use, arguably the great unused zoo space in the UK.

Ultimately it's all a matter of opinion. But I do feel that Western zoos have responsibility to build as cheaply as possible so that they have funds available to help as many species as possible, rather than concentrate on a handful of showcase exhibits.

 

[Dassie rat]

Dassie rat: I can understand that most visitors to London Zoo wish to see popular animals and aren't bothered about obscure animals, but I just wish that the 'Tiger Project' had been more honest. Perhaps enclosure enrichment, which was one of the advantages of Glasgow Zoo, is the way forward, rather than massive, expensive enclosures, leading to fewer species being conserved.
Sooty mangabey: An attractive tiger enclosure, highlighting the work that ZSL are doing with this species (and it is that work that makes the Sumatran the only species of tiger that they could possibly countenance keeping) is for the benefit fo visitors as much as it is for the benefit of tigers. Is this not true of 99% of zoo enclosures, ultimately?
---
In good zoos, the enclosures should be for the benefit of the animals. I tend to agree with the Aspinall philosophy that the animals should be able to retreat from public view, if desired. I saw a brown hyaena at San Diego Zoo that was desperately trying to get indoors. I don't know if another hyaena was inside, but I don't think a frustrated hyaena made a good exhibit. As captive tigers don't have to hunt for food, do they really need a very large enclosure. If a large enclosure had the vegetation of the Sumatran rainforest, I doubt if many people would see the tigers, so it still sounds like millions of pounds being spent on an ego boost. I know a ZSL employee who has been trying to conserve pygmy hogs, hispid hares and Ganges river dolphins, but I don't expect any of these animals to be kept at London Zoo, so why should a Sumatran tiger take up a big chunk of London Zoo?
----

Sooty mangabey: The tiger is an iconic zoo species - and London has few enough of those!
---
I understand that the tiger is one of the most popular zoo animals, but this doesn't mean that every major, non-specialist zoo should keep tigers. There are many other iconic species that London Zoo could keep and some animals that could become iconic, if they came to the attention of people ‘Meerkats United’ turned an obscure mongoose into one of the most popular zoo animals. London Zoo has giraffes, lions, camels, giraffes, zebras, meerkats, crocodiles and gorillas in a 36 acre site, so that’s quite a few iconic animals.

Dassie rat: I would still prefer a collection to save tigers and other animals in the wild, rather than breeding an over-represented species that will not be returned to the wild.
Sooty mangabey: Of course the wild is better if we are only talking about breeding of endangered species - but is a zoo not about rather more than this? And what species will, really, be returning to the wild anytime soon?
I know a few people who are opposed to zoos and do not like the idea of animals being kept captive for the amusement of visitors. Unfortunately, funds are being raised for the new tiger enclosure on the pretext that the enclosure will save Sumatran tigers from extinction, whereas the real reason is to make money. Zoos have saved the Sumatran tiger from extinction already and if they really wanted to save the wild population of Sumatran tigers, it would have been more honest of ZSL to follow the example of the RSPB and buy up areas of rainforest in Sumatra. I would much rather pay towards saving wild tigers than towards an enclosure that will diminish the number of species kept at London Zoo.
Unfortunately, the number of species that have been bred in zoos and returned to the wild is pitifully small. Zoos need to be realistic and accept that many large animals will probably become extinct in the wild in the next few decades, due to the growth in human population and the destruction of wild habitats. That is why I feel it would be better to try and conserve smaller species, which can be bred and returned to smaller areas of habitat than are required by larger animals. It would also be better to stop banging the drum about breeding large animals represented by captive populations of hundreds, or sometimes thousands, of individuals. These animals are safe – there are thousands of species that are not.

 

[Pertinax]

£3 million of expenditure might well bring a great deal of the hundred acres at the bottom of Sir Peter's Way at Whipsnade into use, arguably the great unused zoo space in the UK.

Excuse me for digressing momentarily from your very interesting discussion, but where is this- is it the area after the Common Hippo pools?

 

[Shirokuma]

It's very interesting reading all these comments.

My thoughts, somewhat at random are that:

I think it is so important that ZSL are creative and make the most of the London Zoo site. As we all know this isn't easy given some of the restrictions in place concerning the architectural significance of much of the zoo.

I welcome the new tiger developments.

London Zoo isn't like somewhere in the country that can rely on natural features allowing more simple enclosures, everything has to be created from scratch.

London is a global metropolis with a hugely important tourism industry. I don't think London Zoo should become some flashy gimick filled theme park but it must impress, it must showcase animals and related issues of conservation and biodiversity to the public in a way that is attractive and engaging. People have high expectations and London Zoo must meet those - and things like the penguin pool and animal adventure really do meet those. Areas like the cat terraces, increasingly, don't. They are looking seriously tired and need more than a lick of paint and some banners.

London's in situ work is so important but the zoo needs to be a place where people want to come, that has a good reputation. Given the cost of tickets to get in, it needs to be aesthetically attractive and visually impressive.

By the way, I think Basel is a good example of this kind of change being implemented in a small urban zoo.

 

[IanRRobinson]

Excuse me for digressing momentarily from your very interesting discussion, but where is this- is it the area after the Common Hippo pools?

That's right. Apparently Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell hoped that London Midland & Scottish would build a spur line to Studham, where the park's main entrance would have been. He would have dubbed the site the Chiltern Wild Animal Park.

Who knows what might have happened had World War II not broken out? As it is, all that remains of the vision is the short stretch of path known as Sir Peter's Way, with hippos on one side and greater kudu on the other.

It is popularly believed that Sir Peter's ashes are buried in this area. If this is so, I think he would have hoped for more exotic companions than black fallow deer and Bennett's wallabies.

 

[kiang]

Is this land still available to the society?

 

[Pertinax]

As it is, all that remains of the vision is the short stretch of path known as Sir Peter's Way, with hippos on one side and greater kudu on the other.

It is popularly believed that Sir Peter's ashes are buried in this area. If this is so, I think he would have hoped for more exotic companions than black fallow deer and Bennett's wallabies.

Thanks for the History-fascinating. I've always wondered why that path ends abruptly at the fence where you can see the black fallow deer herd and the odd Emu on the other side. It is an attractive area too- probably the only real 'valley' in the Park. I can imagine it as being an alternative entrance to Whipsnade.