Hi -I used to post at Johnstoni, and before then Hadley, but with a new email I've had to set up this username. I rarely get time to post, but the recent discussion on London has been interesting to me, so apologies in advance for such a long entry here.
Lion Terraces redevelopment
I'll be glad to see the Lion Terraces are to be largely demolished, I think the existing lion enclosure would have come in for increasing criticism over the coming years. Its not huge, especially with the moat, and the offshoot enclosure wasn't originally designed for holidng a pride of lions. The public areas in the middle of the terraces are outdated and should be given over to enclosure space. IMHO the development will create an acceptable environment for one of London's remaining large carnivores, and will therefore mean people will see lions in Regent's Park for many years to come.
Compare this to Bristol, where maintaining more than one large cat species became untenable by the late 90s, as refurbishment of the tiger/lion/leopard cages only yielded what is now one of the smaller lion enclosures in the UK, and the tigers (once the former polar bear pit could no longer house them) ultimately had to leave the zoo. I wonder how much longer Bristol, (in many ways analagous to London in its evolution from an older urban postage-stamp collection) will maintain its lions in the current enclosure.
I realise much of the issue with the current terraces is perception. I think inner-city zoos (of which there are few in the UK) can seem run-down and bleak in a way that collections reached by travelling through miles of countryside don't; rain and fog can be enchanting in the country but, in cities, they make everything look grim and depressing. Port Lympne's lower lion runs look(ed) naturalistic (in a rustic way) at Port Lympne; in London, they would appear ramshackle, as if in a state of disrepair. So I understand why such 'high-end' redevelopments are being undertaken at London. Part of this is to do with the 'finish' of the Royal Parks, in which London Zoo is set. Only in recent years have the paths, planting, kiosks and signage seemed of the same standard within the zoo as it is outside. More than this though, London recieves greater public and media scrutiny of its zoo inspections, and some of its deaths (gorillas, penguins). Born Free I think definitely understand that a press release on a welfare issue at London will circulate more widely than for one of the lesser-known zoos (plus the historic relationship with ZSL that goes back to their inception in the 1980s), and I think ZSL must be acutely aware they are scrutinised because of their profile.
I also think that London will continue to slowly reduce its mammal and bird collections to a handful of species that can be linked to field conservation projects, and where (often, but not always) they have sustained themselves in the collection through breeding relatively well. Due to its invertebrate, fish and reptile collections, I think nowadays London has a more representative spread of biological diversity (microbes aside) than it ever has; while I get that people posting here often think the public will choose other zoos in the region where there are larger mammal and bird collections, London zoo competes with other London attractions, not other zoos. Its marketing and PR team has matured over the last two decades to the extent that a new enclosure for an existing species can generate revenue – new arrivals aren't needed. In a sense, advertising new species as 'new for 2014' is almost a tactic confined to lower-profile/less-established collections. I disagree that London has no money, its fundraisers have shown that very expensive exhibits, for existing species (or very similar in the case of the penguins) can be funded during a recession. That's quite an achievement for an institution that receives no public funding. Compare this to the recession of the early 90s, when London almost closed - twice.
Thinking back to the plans for 'Penguin Beach', where distinct areas were earmarked for groups of three penguin species (including little blue, which hasn't been kept successfully in the UK), its conceivable that the final development might not actually house Hanuman langurs or hornbills alongside the lions. London does have a long history of keeping Hanuman (grey) langurs, but I wonder about the rationale of purpose-building a facilitiy for a non-endangered species which will be sourced essentially to act as a prop for the lions, while displacing several endangered primates (which would of course have to move anyway). Bearing in mind the mock temple slightly limits its purpose beyond one species of langur. While zoos generally avoid sensationalising their animals these days, with animals not displayed as to magnify their stature, 'fierceness', or indeed strangeness, I think the 'disneyfication' of animals in exhibits designed to make them appear relatable (and, I would argue, passive and harmless), which can be traced back to places like Drusillas in the 80s (where the previous owners in interviews cited the influence of some US zoo exhibit design and which was explicity a childrens' zoo) has crept into Regent's Park in the last few years, from 'Happy Families' to 'Meet the Monkeys' and 'Penguin Beach'. I think this can be as dishonest a way of exhibiting animals as older, more sensationalised, exhibits. So a fake temple for the langurs to climb over, despite the fact it does reference a factual occurance in the range country, could be very easy to get wrong in terms of context.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the temple and village well in the designs I think has the potential to be quite offensive, and would hope ZSL involved people of South Asian heritage, and both British and Indian nationalities in its consulting process. It would be a real shame if the message conveyed at this exhibit was one of overpopulation and unsustainable use, as I think repetition of this meme without explaining its nuances and historical context will become increasingly called out for the racist slant that it is. I wonder if space will be given to the story of the indigenous communites relocated from Palpur-Kuno to make way for the proposed lion reintroduction, given that that representatives for these people, who cooperated in leaving their lands to be resettled elsewhere, argue that most of the rehabilitation package has not materialised? My point being, if you're going to reference humans in storytelling an exhibit, who ensures balance and truth in terms of the bigger picture? I would be very impressed if London actually tackles all thesse issues in its interpretation.
People posting on here do seem genuinely sad at the loss of species, and I think that small cats are not high on the list for a zoo where less identifiable mammals sort of have to earn their keep by being active (mongoose, bearded pigs), or friendly (aardvarks, tamandua). I don't think the zoo would still have persevered with, say, Malayan tapir, had they not bred well, and I will be genuinely surprised if they replaced the anoa. I think that longer-term housing of large monkeys in cages is unlikely given contemporary exhibit design, and the only location London could really house these species in open enclosures with vegetation would be the North and South banks (there was no indication on the 2007 masterplan that ZSL planned to site primates here (aside from the Snowdon aviary being used as a colobus exhibit). However, folivorous or destructive species (langurs and macaques) are probably the least suitable candidates for this. Maybe the servals will be moved to 'Into Africa' somehow (possibly moving the warthogs up to the yard behind the giraffe), but I don't think they were acquired on conservation grounds – servals are relatively duirnal, compatible in pairs, and don't seem to pace overly in captivity – so I think they were essentially a low-risk space filler for the public after the lynx moved on.
It is interesting that the old tiger enclosure isn't included in the design. It would make sense that the lions might be housed here temporarily while the 'forest' enclosure and expansion of their existing house is done, assuming the building work doesn't cause them stress, although I can see that coming in for a lot of criticism and won't be surprised if another institution take the lions temporarily (WHF springs to mind, having taken in the previous tigers). However, as the tiger house is still shown as being redeveloped in the plans, it doesn't explain why the outside enclosure wouldn't be, especially because something will have to be done to remove at least the rest of the structure not used in the lion exhibit. Possibly the plans or the 'Indian Wetlands' of the 2007 masterplan still stand, especially given the new views of Three Island Pond that will be opened up through the lion development, and the recent press about pinioning which implied a flight aviary might be in the pipeline for its remaining pinioned birds, which at least will mean flamingo chicks can be left unpinioned. If a netted aviary is planned here, its likely some additional space might be used, which would explain the tiger enclosure being set aside. Or there could be plans to add on another, complementary, exhibit at a later date. In terms of existing South Asian species within the living collection, while ZSL could return deer, antelope or gaur to London and extend the Casson enclosure to the boundary of the lion development, I think this is as unlikely as gaur surviving much longer in Europe without new genetic material, although if indeed an Indian Wetlands exhibit (that would broadly fit into a zoogeographic theme) is to follow after the lion development, perhaps plans to do something with Indian ungulates aren't so unlikely?
As for the Mappin Terraces, I actually like the fact that there are bodies preventing inconvenient buildings from being destroyed. There is no way another Mappin Terraces would ever be built – an aquarium with a three (well, two now) level mountain built on top of it.....this is such a marker of its time and should absolutely be preserved. While some posts here have enthused about it being used as a lion habitat, there's no suitable indoor accommodation on the existing structure, and I can't imagine English Heritage approving the amount of fencing required to contain anything that can jump the height that large cats are albe to, let alone poles and netting to house vultures. I think more innovative options are possible for using the whole structure, but really the Outback is visually impressive to those visitors not worried that there isn't a swamp wallaby lurking alongside more common species (red kangaroos aren't exactly common in UK zoos though). The fact that ZSL didn't capitalise on this as a walkthrough exhibit suggests this is either a short-term use for the terraces, or a mixture of (rightly) disability legislation and listed status restrictions have prevented new paths and walkways into the enclosure being created.
I do agree with other posters that vast exhibits with many metres of viewing galleries but with occupants that may stay for hours in the same corner of the exhibit makes the rest of the one-way system fairly unstimulating for visitors, regardless of the interp. I'm not clear to what extent this will be employed in the new lion development, but I also think there's something a little distancing about glass, ironically; it's too much like a screen, and the acoustics and smells of the public gallery often replace those from the enclosure. The double-meshed tiger walkway at Thrigby springs to mind....it's not the tigers themselves, but the proximity of visitors to the tigers (which often rest against the wire) that seems to be photographed so often, and having seen this in person I would agree that its more exciting to be six inches away from a tiger through two sheets of mesh than it is to be one inch away through glass.
It will be interesting to see whether the plans to house up to 12 lions are realised, given the reliance on new genes into the European population. I'm also curious to see where ZSL intend to conduct its in situ work. Are they going to assist with the existing population in Gujarat as it spreads beyong the Gir Forest, or with the opposing camp trying to expropriate some of the Gujarat lions for release in Madhya Pradesh? If the latter, there's little chance Gujarat state will entrust Europe with any more lions (even from its zoos), given that it's currently appealing the 2013 Supreme Court decision forcing them to hand over some lions to the project at Palpur-Kuno. In terms of the Kuno reintroduction project, if lions are relocated to more tourist-friendly, more beautiful parts of India than the dry scrub semi-desert of the gir forest region, and Gujarat loses out on revenue from tourism, I wonder whether the people of Gujarat will continue to see the lions as an asset worthy of the same tolerance and protection they currently afford them? I don't have figures for how much the local economy benefits from tourism as a result of the lions, again it would be impressive to see ZSL tackle this in their interp and publicity.
I'm not aware of whether there are pure-bred captive lions in Indian zoos outside of Gujarat? There are certainly some captive African and hybrid lions in Indian zoos. If no new genes are forthcoming, the lion enclosure at London will have a short lifespan before it needs to be re-imagined for African lions, or for lions to be another species to no longer occupy Regent's park.
Pygmy hippo relocation
A few posts have been written about whether its appropriate to use school children in designing renewable-energy systems for heating the pools in the new exhibit. There are precedents with this – Drusillas had primary school kids design its meerkat exhibit in 1988 – an enclosure which looks modern by todays standards (its size being the only aspect from which modern meerkat enclosures have moved on somewhat) – and last year's meerkat/porcupine exhibit at the IOW zoo, which again involved schoolchildren in its design.
It looks to me as if London is investing a small amount to cut costs longer-term without really changing the old tapir facility structurally, I'm assuming because the hippos spend long periods submerged (unlike the tapirs which tend to take intermittent 'dips' when active.) and so require more robust heating (heating of the outdoor pool in addition to the indoor one is commendable and may lead to more use of the outdoor enclosure year-round). I think the bigger issue is whether its an appropriate land area for a species which likes to graze, and which seems to do better in larger enclosures where there is some grazing available. Perhaps in some ways London are fortunate in having what appears to be a non-breeding pair of hippo that seem to be mixed for the majority of the time, rather than a breeding pair that would need to be kept separately most of the year, on what is not a vast area of land. At least the house, designed for rotating 3 or 4 larger species with more stalls than outdoor yards originally, provides a very generous winter area, perhaps a factor in why the tapir did so well here (hopefully the Casson indoor quarters will not prove to be less preferable). The hippos were earmarked for the site of the current zoo entrance in the 2007 masterplan; I'm assuming the broadwalk exit that opened a couple of years ago was a scaled-down version of the proposed relocation of the zoo entrance to this side of the boundary, and that the entrance site is no longer proposed for this species.
I think ZSL miss a trick in not siting the hippos adjacent to the gorillas, where, in the way some city zoos on the continent do, they could have modified the moat to give the hippos access (and even the gorilla exhibit for night grazing during warmer months), partly because I think that in just a few years' time, the giraffes enclosure is going to stick out like a sore thumb at London. Maybe this is a blind spot for ZSL, given 'Into Africa' opened in 2006 but, short of demolishing the upper Cotton terrace houses and moats, and giving the whole level over to the giraffes, I think displaying them in a yard (against the backdrop of a brick wall) will generate a lot of criticism in coming years, as more open paddocks for giraffe pop up at other parks around the country. Granted, London's giraffes ironically get more space in winter than many of those kept in lush paddocks elsewhere (and have the stimulation of limited but living browse in the adjacent trees during summer), but public perception I think will harden, especially with an untimely death or the press picking up on stereotypic behaviour. I do not believe London chooses to maintain a single-sex group of hybrid females over a breeding group of a subspecies for reasons of strategic importance to the breeding programmes. I think they won't risk breeding in the current enclosure due to issues in the past when they had a breeding group but equally I think it will become increasingly hard to justify even a less risky group of hybrid females without some real expansion of the enclosure. As for the zebras, what even needs to be said? So for the hippos to move here on anything but a temporary basis is to my mind a nail in the coffin for the long-term prospects of giraffe at Regent's Park.
),yet with little or no fear of attack or other interest from them- something that certainly can't normally be done with African Lions. Obviously captive lions are a different matter though regarding behaviour. 
