ZSL London Zoo ZSL London Zoo News 2013

[Kifaru Bwana]

I appreciate your opinions. If you are not comfy with the idea of Asian lions extending into the rest of the Pavillions, what do you suggest should get into its place? Also, interested to hear what Tim would hold on the subject.

I will agree in so far that at the moment the original Carnivore section has become a little miss mash hop scotch amalgamate of species that seem sometimes a little out-of-the-theme alltogether. Perhaps, the reason why they wish to revive it!

Further, what does the Masterplan hold on this section of the zoo?

 

[pipaluk]

I appreciate your opinions. If you are not comfy with the idea of Asian lions extending into the rest of the Pavillions, what do you suggest should get into its place? Also, interested to hear what Tim would hold on the subject.

I will agree in so far that at the moment the original Carnivore section has become a little miss mash hop scotch amalgamate of species that seem sometimes a little out-of-the-theme alltogether. Perhaps, the reason why they wish to revive it!

Further, what does the Masterplan hold on this section of the zoo?

I think the area should revert to being solely for cats/ other carnivores, whether that means using the existing enclosures or knocking some of the smaller ones down to build a decent jaguar,leopard or snow leopard enclosure. The old tiger area should remain in use for a carnivore, but i doubt it would be considered high enough for those species. What goes in there may depend on geographic theming if that were used.
I too would move the lions to the mappins & put a bear species in their area. Move all the asian primates to the north bank or elsewhere.
If they wanted geographic theming, they could have say andean bear,maned wolf or bush dog in the tiger area, tayra where the macaques are & redevelop the rest for jaguar and add a couple of cages for smaller south american cats.
London really needs more carnivores, not less.

 

[Shorts]

I too would move the lions to the mappins & put a bear species in their area.

I can envisage that (like Edinburgh's or some continental enclosures I've seen) and think that it might work quite well with a small bear species (maybe Sun Bears).

Move all the asian primates to the north bank or elsewhere.

I can't imagine that would be very practical or (probably more importantly) cost effective. Also, there's not many "elsewheres" available at London. I think the reality is that although London has, on paper, a fair amount of space it's restricted by both available cash, listed buildings and the logistical need for piecemeal development (the only alternative where radical changes could be made being "temporary" closedown and redevelopment of the whole site en mass, like Paris)

If they wanted geographic theming, they could have say andean bear,maned wolf or bush dog in the tiger area, tayra where the macaques are & redevelop the rest for jaguar and add a couple of cages for smaller south american cats.

Nice idea in principal but in practice it'd be giving over a large area to a number of species that aren't exactly showy -Jaguar, Maned Wolf and smaller cats, in my experience, are often no-shows and/or inactive (my verdict's still out on Spectacled Bears). I can just imagine Joe Public not seeing much and moaning that the zoo's hardly got any animals.

London really needs more carnivores, not less.

For us Zoo-chatters, yes yes yes. For Joe Public, I'm less certain -sure they want to see lions, tigers and bears (oh my!) but beyond that (carnivore wise) I think they want to see animals, preferably active ones and are not that fussed whether it's a monkey, antelope, Coati or Ocelot.

All the above said though, I'd love to see them squeeze in some carnivores or small cats myself, maybe the North bank could be redeveloped for them -given a lot of visitors seem to omit going there the relative quietness might help them be a little more showy (and most people who'd make the journey might be happy with the rate of no-shows). Hey presto, a zoo within a zoo for us zoo-nerds!

 

[pipaluk]

I can envisage that (like Edinburgh's or some continental enclosures I've seen) and think that it might work quite well with a small bear species (maybe Sun Bears).



I can't imagine that would be very practical or (probably more importantly) cost effective. Also, there's not many "elsewheres" available at London. I think the reality is that although London has, on paper, a fair amount of space it's restricted by both available cash, listed buildings and the logistical need for piecemeal development (the only alternative where radical changes could be made being "temporary" closedown and redevelopment of the whole site en mass, like Paris)



Nice idea in principal but in practice it'd be giving over a large area to a number of species that aren't exactly showy -Jaguar, Maned Wolf and smaller cats, in my experience, are often no-shows and/or inactive (my verdict's still out on Spectacled Bears). I can just imagine Joe Public not seeing much and moaning that the zoo's hardly got any animals.



For us Zoo-chatters, yes yes yes. For Joe Public, I'm less certain -sure they want to see lions, tigers and bears (oh my!) but beyond that (carnivore wise) I think they want to see animals, preferably active ones and are not that fussed whether it's a monkey, antelope, Coati or Ocelot.

You may have a point about no-shows, particularly maned wolf, but they were just an example. I would rather have bush dogs as i've never had trouble seeing them, but maned wolf are another matter!
I think all the enclosures would need adapting/designing with indoor viewing in most cases.
The reason i suggested andean bear was because there aren't any for miles, whilst one of the nearest zoos already have sun bears.
I know listed buildings & probably finance even more so, will always be a problem, but they managed to find millions for tiger territory- very good enclosure incidentally, just a shame building costs are so high in London.

 

[IanRRobinson]

As often the case, I find myself nodding sympathetically towards pipaluk here. I would just add two comments - if the African theming of Gorilla Kingdom was quietly forgotten (and with gibbons and Hanuman langurs poked into corners right from its inception this would be no bad thing!) then most of the primates held on the Lion Terraces could go back to the Sobell Pavilions.

The spider monkeys might be done very nicely on the Canal bank and a new home for the macaques near the anoa would be contiguous with the other primates and fit into the general Indonesian theming of that area.

I'd add one other thought: in broad terms if we have a party one night we eat cheaply for the rest of the month. The Lion Terraces do look in need of a rethink, but they are structurally sound and I do not think that the Lions have welfare issues.

Compare this with the Hippo accommodation at Whipsnade, done twenty years ago when ZSL was just inching forward out of the closure crises. It was done on the cheap and it shows. In order to have some Common Hippo on view throughout the year, one cow has been kept in a stall the same size as that accommodating Pigmy Hippo in the adjoining den. This is grossly unfair to Lola, the animal in question, to the general public whose perception of these wonderful animals is impaired, and to the Pigmy Hippo studbook; if a decent house for Common Hippo was erected then Lola's stall could be holding an additional Pigmy Hippo in comfort.

Any money for improvements at Whipsnade has to come, ultimately, from the same pot as London. IMO, there are species already held within London and Whipsnade that need improved accommodation before the Lions at London.

 

[IanRRobinson]

I can envisage that (like Edinburgh's or some continental enclosures I've seen) and think that it might work quite well with a small bear species (maybe Sun Bears).



I can't imagine that would be very practical or (probably more importantly) cost effective. Also, there's not many "elsewheres" available at London. I think the reality is that although London has, on paper, a fair amount of space it's restricted by both available cash, listed buildings and the logistical need for piecemeal development (the only alternative where radical changes could be made being "temporary" closedown and redevelopment of the whole site en mass, like Paris)



Nice idea in principle but in practice it'd be giving over a large area to a number of species that aren't exactly showy -Jaguar, Maned Wolf and smaller cats, in my experience, are often no-shows and/or inactive (my verdict's still out on Spectacled Bears). I can just imagine Joe Public not seeing much and moaning that the zoo's hardly got any animals.



For us Zoo-chatters, yes yes yes. For Joe Public, I'm less certain -sure they want to see lions, tigers and bears (oh my!) but beyond that (carnivore wise) I think they want to see animals, preferably active ones and are not that fussed whether it's a monkey, antelope, Coati or Ocelot.

All the above said though, I'd love to see them squeeze in some carnivores or small cats myself, maybe the North bank could be redeveloped for them -given a lot of visitors seem to omit going there the relative quietness might help them be a little more showy (and most people who'd make the journey might be happy with the rate of no-shows). Hey presto, a zoo within a zoo for us zoo-nerds!

I wonder how many of us had parents who were "Joe Public" (a phrase that I must confess I loathe!) but who had children inspired to take a deeper interest by the availability of the exotic, the incongruous and the bizarre at London Zoo thirty, forty or fifty years ago? Part of London's remit OUGHT to be to keep the obscure, the secretive and the unusual. If it fails to do so then they're won't be many zoochatters coming from London in twenty years' time.

And why the assumption that London's visitors are so, frankly, crass? Edinburgh and Belfast, to select the other capitals of the UK that have zoos, keep smaller, more obscure carnivores. Doubtless people walk past them a lot of the time - but sometimes they won't. And who knows what they gain from those moments?

Everybody's heard about Lions and Tigers. But if one inquisitive child, aged anywhere from six to sixty, looks at an Asiatic Gold Cat, says " I never knew about them" and is inspired to know more, then the world has become a better, more hopeful place. Which is what zoos should be in the business of creating.

 

[Shorts]

The reason i suggested andean bear was because there aren't any for miles, whilst one of the nearest zoos already have sun bears.

Fair point, I forget the relative nearness of Colchester to London as they're two separate and distinct locations for me travelling from the Midlands.

Personally I'd still be tempted for Sun Bears as, to date, they've never let me down in terms of being active.

 

[Shorts]

I'd add one other thought: in broad terms if we have a party one night we eat cheaply for the rest of the month. The Lion Terraces do look in need of a rethink, but they are structurally sound and I do not think that the Lions have welfare issues.

Compare this with the Hippo accommodation at Whipsnade, done twenty years ago when ZSL was just inching forward out of the closure crises. It was done on the cheap and it shows. In order to have some Common Hippo on view throughout the year, one cow has been kept in a stall the same size as that accommodating Pigmy Hippo in the adjoining den. This is grossly unfair to Lola, the animal in question, to the general public whose perception of these wonderful animals is impaired, and to the Pigmy Hippo studbook; if a decent house for Common Hippo was erected then Lola's stall could be holding an additional Pigmy Hippo in comfort.

Any money for improvements at Whipsnade has to come, ultimately, from the same pot as London. IMO, there are species already held within London and Whipsnade that need improved accommodation before the Lions at London.

To be honest, I think you've hit a nail squarely on the head here regarding the Whipsnade hippo accommodation.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Nice idea in principal but in practice it'd be giving over a large area to a number of species that aren't exactly showy -Jaguar, Maned Wolf and smaller cats, in my experience, are often no-shows and/or inactive (my verdict's still out on Spectacled Bears). I can just imagine Joe Public not seeing much and moaning that the zoo's hardly got any animals.

That said, the Jaguars at Edinburgh are some of the showiest and most active of their species I have ever seen. Moreover, as small cats go one of the suggested species - ocelot - is pretty showy; I've never seen an inactive ocelot, and that includes the blind one at Shaldon!

 

[Brum]

That said, the Jaguars at Edinburgh are some of the showiest and most active of their species I have ever seen. Moreover, as small cats go one of the suggested species - ocelot - is pretty showy; I've never seen an inactive ocelot, and that includes the blind one at Shaldon!

I often see inactive ocelots but even when they sleep they tend to be quite visible and not as secretive as other cats. Another good suggestion would be lynx, now they are a very showy smallish cat. The only other species that shows that well is serval and they already have those.

 

[Pertinax]

It was done on the cheap and it shows. In order to have some Common Hippo on view throughout the year, one cow has been kept in a stall the same size as that accommodating Pigmy Hippo in the adjoining den.

While the other Common Hippo(s) must still live behind the scenes in the old railway-sleeper shed and heaven knows what that accomodation must be like, its been there for yonks. This Hippo house is really a bit of 'old Whipsnade' with a bit of 'new' Whipsnade (the new little house)tacked onto the front. I agree they badly need a complete new house for the Common Hippos so they can be seen properly all the year round. A more simplified version of the Indian Rhino building would fit the bill.

 

[pipaluk]

Fair point, I forget the relative nearness of Colchester to London as they're two separate and distinct locations for me travelling from the Midlands.

Personally I'd still be tempted for Sun Bears as, to date, they've never let me down in terms of being active.

I wouldn't really mind what bear species they got, as long as they had them again. I dont think it really matters as no species would be as big a crowd puller as pandas or polar bears.
I think it might be better for London to offer something different to Colchester, as it really is a major competitor for anyone living in essex, herts or the outer london boroughs. 30 years ago Colchester was poor compared to London zoo & rail travel cheaper so many from those areas who would have traditionally visited London back then now head to Colchester, which most regard as the better & certainly better value of the two.

 

[Shorts]

I wonder how many of us had parents who were "Joe Public" (a phrase that I must confess I loathe!) but who had children inspired to take a deeper interest by the availability of the exotic, the incongruous and the bizarre at London Zoo thirty, forty or fifty years ago? Part of London's remit OUGHT to be to keep the obscure, the secretive and the unusual. If it fails to do so then they're won't be many zoochatters coming from London in twenty years' time.

And why the assumption that London's visitors are so, frankly, crass? Edinburgh and Belfast, to select the other capitals of the UK that have zoos, keep smaller, more obscure carnivores. Doubtless people walk past them a lot of the time - but sometimes they won't. And who knows what they gain from those moments?

Everybody's heard about Lions and Tigers. But if one inquisitive child, aged anywhere from six to sixty, looks at an Asiatic Gold Cat, says " I never knew about them" and is inspired to know more, then the world has become a better, more hopeful place. Which is what zoos should be in the business of creating.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment (regarding inspiring future generations) I think London can achieve that with it's current animals. They have by far the best reptile/amphibian house and aquarium in any UK zoo and (arguably) their nocturnal, bird and invertebrate collections are better than pretty much all other UK zoos. To my mind London displays the wonder of the variety of life better than anywhere else in UK -I think Bristol also do a very good job on a smaller scale. It's not just extra obscure mammals that inspire future generations (especially if the educational material is well done).

Ideally I want obscure mammals (as I know you do) but where we differ is that I strongly think the zoo, more than anything, needs to be a good looking zoo that pleases large numbers of people to provide financial stability to move forward.

I don't think using Belfast* and Edinburgh to make your point (about keeping obscure carnivores) works particularly well. Belfast (which I love) is council owned/run so doesn't have the same financial situation as London and, if you run through their animal inventory, they have one of the most complete collections of "ABC" animals in a UK zoo (I think probably only Whipsnade has more). I think that once you have those animals to please the crowds then you can slot in the more obscure stuff. London doesn't really have that many ABC's and it's on that basis I think it's important their keeping/increasing/improving housing of them needs to be the top priority. Similarly Edinburgh (another place I love) also has a good number of the ABC's and whilst there are gaps (Giraffes, Elephants) they're covered by some real crowd-pullers (Koalas and Giant Pandas)

* apart from the Golden Cat/incoming Otters do they currently hold many more obscure carnivores?

 

[TeaLovingDave]

* apart from the Golden Cat/incoming Otters do they currently hold many more obscure carnivores?

Palawan Binturong, White-nosed Coati, Fossa and Maned Wolf all count as obscure to greater or lesser extent I believe.

 

[pipaluk]

Whilst I agree with your sentiment (regarding inspiring future generations) I think London can achieve that with it's current animals. They have by far the best reptile/amphibian house and aquarium in any UK zoo and (arguably) their nocturnal, bird and invertebrate collections are better than pretty much all other UK zoos. To my mind London displays the wonder of the variety of life better than anywhere else in UK -I think Bristol also do a very good job on a smaller scale. It's not just extra obscure mammals that inspire future generations (especially if the educational material is well done).

Ideally I want obscure mammals (as I know you do) but where we differ is that I strongly think the zoo, more than anything, needs to be a good looking zoo that pleases large numbers of people to provide financial stability to move forward.

I don't think using Belfast* and Edinburgh to make your point (about keeping obscure carnivores) works particularly well. Belfast (which I love) is council owned/run so doesn't have the same financial situation as London and, if you run through their animal inventory, they have one of the most complete collections of "ABC" animals in a UK zoo (I think probably only Whipsnade has more). I think that once you have those animals to please the crowds then you can slot in the more obscure stuff. London doesn't really have that many ABC's and it's on that basis I think it's important their keeping/increasing/improving housing of them needs to be the top priority. Similarly Edinburgh (another place I love) also has a good number of the ABC's and whilst there are gaps (Giraffes, Elephants) they're covered by some real crowd-pullers (Koalas and Giant Pandas)

* apart from the Golden Cat/incoming Otters do they currently hold many more obscure carnivores?[/QUOTE
Surely Chester (or colchester) has an almost complete set of 'ABC' animals, probably only hippos and sealions missing from the main ones, more so than Edinburgh or Belfast. I hate that description though!
As i've said before i wouldn't rate a reptile house with only one crocodilian that highly either as i'm sure a lot of the public wouldn't either.

 

[Shorts]

Surely Chester (or colchester) has an almost complete set of 'ABC' animals, probably only hippos and sealions missing from the main ones, more so than Edinburgh or Belfast. I hate that description though!
As i've said before i wouldn't rate a reptile house with only one crocodilian that highly either as i'm sure a lot of the public wouldn't either.

Fair point on Chester/Colchester, but I think Belfast's only really missing Hippos and Rhino's. I wouldn't argue Edinburgh's near a complete set but, as I said, it does has some very big-hitters to compensate.

I'd agree that (ideally) a great reptile house would have more than one crocodilian but there's nowhere else in the UK you can see as many venomous species (plus large amounts of other reptiles/amphibians). It's not perfect, but I'd still argue it's the best in the UK. I also rate West Midlands' collection but it has little else but "ABC reptiles" (even I didn't like typing that but couldn't think of a better way to explain my thoughts).

 

[Shorts]

Palawan Binturong, White-nosed Coati, Fossa and Maned Wolf all count as obscure to greater or lesser extent I believe.

Fair point (sub-consciously I knew there had to be more), damn my failing memory.

 

[IanRRobinson]

Whilst I agree with your sentiment (regarding inspiring future generations) I think London can achieve that with it's current animals. They have by far the best reptile/amphibian house and aquarium in any UK zoo and (arguably) their nocturnal, bird and invertebrate collections are better than pretty much all other UK zoos. To my mind London displays the wonder of the variety of life better than anywhere else in UK -I think Bristol also do a very good job on a smaller scale. It's not just extra obscure mammals that inspire future generations (especially if the educational material is well done).

Ideally I want obscure mammals (as I know you do) but where we differ is that I strongly think the zoo, more than anything, needs to be a good looking zoo that pleases large numbers of people to provide financial stability to move forward.

I don't think using Belfast* and Edinburgh to make your point (about keeping obscure carnivores) works particularly well. Belfast (which I love) is council owned/run so doesn't have the same financial situation as London and, if you run through their animal inventory, they have one of the most complete collections of "ABC" animals in a UK zoo (I think probably only Whipsnade has more). I think that once you have those animals to please the crowds then you can slot in the more obscure stuff. London doesn't really have that many ABC's and it's on that basis I think it's important their keeping/increasing/improving housing of them needs to be the top priority. Similarly Edinburgh (another place I love) also has a good number of the ABC's and whilst there are gaps (Giraffes, Elephants) they're covered by some real crowd-pullers (Koalas and Giant Pandas)

An interesting discussion.

I am concerned at how limited London's collection of mammals (and birds for that matter) has become. Exclude Lions and Tigers on the one hand, and Asiatic short-clawed otters and Meerkats on the other, the Zoo's (non-events) carnivores comprise Serval; Yellow Mongoose: and African Wild Dog.

Exclude Giraffe, domestic cameloids and Reindeer, and the even-toed ungulates comprise Bearded Pig (males castrated, so no future there); Warthog; Pigmy Hippo; Vicuna; Okapi; and Lowland Anoa (one venerable female whose eventual replacement I wonder about).

The wonderful variety of small mammals once held in the Clore has largely been dispersed - no small marsupials (one aging potoroo apart), tree shrews, jerboas, or squirrels are held anymore. Really,the only mammalian group where a decent, comprehensive collection has remained are primates (although to keep Aye-Aye off-show seems perverse)!

As for birds - well, there are no eagles, big hornbills, big owls or cranes, and few pheasants or waterfowl.

These represent too many gaps for a zoo in a capital city of London's size and wealth. Arizona Docent recently referred to London as being "mediocre" - that hurt me, and it should hurt any UK zoo enthusiast.

I don't want to go back to the London of thirty or forty years ago. That held too many birds and mammals held in cramped, unstimulating conditions. But the collection has been hollowed out too far.

 

[Rajang21]

Another update on plans for the zoo. The Vicuna will eventually move in with the Anteaters.
Query: a few years ago there was a gazelle where the vicunas now are. What happened to that?

 

[pipaluk]

An interesting discussion.

I am concerned at how limited London's collection of mammals (and birds for that matter) has become. Exclude Lions and Tigers on the one hand, and Asiatic short-clawed otters and Meerkats on the other, the Zoo's (non-events) carnivores comprise Serval; Yellow Mongoose: and African Wild Dog.

Exclude Giraffe, domestic cameloids and Reindeer, and the even-toed ungulates comprise Bearded Pig (males castrated, so no future there); Warthog; Pigmy Hippo; Vicuna; Okapi; and Lowland Anoa (one venerable female whose eventual replacement I wonder about).

The wonderful variety of small mammals once held in the Clore has largely been dispersed - no small marsupials (one aging potoroo apart), tree shrews, jerboas, or squirrels are held anymore. Really, it is only primates where a decent, comprehensive collection has remained.

As for birds - well, there are no eagles, big hornbills, big owls or cranes, and few pheasants or waterfowl.

These represent too many gaps for a zoo in a capital city of London's size and wealth. Arizona Docent recently referred to London as being "mediocre" - that hurt me, and it should hurt any UK zoo enthusiast.

I don't want to go back to the London of thirty or forty years ago. That held too many birds and mammals held in cramped, unstimulating conditions. But the collection has been hollowed out too far.

As usual, i have to agree with your points here!
I don't think the zoo does itself any favours by having 2 enclosures each for meerkats & yellow mongoose and what is the need for 6 cages of tawny frogmouth and at least 3 with the same owl species on the north bank in a zoo of limited space?!
London was once a leader in holding mammals not or rarely seen elsewhere in the country, why has this position now been filled by collections like Hamerton, Exmoor or the RSCC?