ZSL London Zoo Born Free attacks London Zoo (again)
- Thread starter Chlidonias
- Start date
Extremely petty of Born Free to bring up an incident from 1847 just to criticise the zoo...
It seems like a desperate ploy to gain publicity to me. I mean half of the article was repeated from last year's, which shows that they did not have enough propaganda to fill a new one.
It seems like a desperate ploy to gain publicity to me. I mean half of the article was repeated from last year's, which shows that they did not have enough propaganda to fill a new one.
While I do not agree with Born Free on many of the organization's issues, I think that it's safe to say that the Gorilla Kingdom exhibit has been a failure. Judging from reviews and reports here on ZooBeat it is apparent that the mainly open-air concept for the "family" of gorillas is nowhere near as good as its price tag warrants. For the most part the habitat has been heavily criticized for its huge amount of hotwire, the lack of a proper ape group, and the dearth of climbing opportunities and overhead cover.
zoogiraffe
Well-Known Member
As far as i`m concerned people in glass houses shouldn`t throw stones,and this appears to be just what Born Free my arse are doing again.
You are correct. They have to repeat previous critisism as they have no fresh ammunition. Also they are too lazy(or stupid) to find out if anything has changed leading to innaccuracy-e.g. the 'dysfunctional group of 3 gorillas' is actually now a much better balanced group of four with plenty of mating...
In the past I've seen them say in a report about ZSL- 'its not known if such and such an animal as bred', or 'how long x has lived there'. Such easy facts to establish but they seem totally oblivious for some reason.
Last edited:
MARK
Well-Known Member
Things are improving..
The group, though still very small and with no proven breeding yet, is a lot better organised socially than it was before the arrival of the 3rd female (Mjuku).The vegetation has grown and the hotwires are less obvious. More dead trees have been added so there are plenty of climbing opportunities. The worst aspect remains the 'fake' tree which is to somehow allow the Colobus access.
I'm the greatest advocate for 'covered' environments for Gorillas and without some sort of miracle, London's will never be that, but its getting better. A few fast growing trees,( e.g. Acacia or Eucalyptus) planted and hotwired for protection, would make an even bigger difference.
johnstoni
Well-Known Member
The hotwires being less obvious doesn't make things any better for the gorillas, but overall the space is better, and I always found most comments on here to be about the wasted opportunity of that investment as opposed to criticism of a welfare situation (although there were issues there, like zaire for a while, but born free haven't seemed to pick up on that. It's okay, it could be better but as Pertinax says, they have added much more climbing equipment, and the vegetation will soon grow right through the barriers allowing them to start selecting plants to eat.
The cat terraces is fair comment by zoocheck, but I think the real drive behind their statement is the knowledge that a new exhibit will permit tigers to be held in london for many years to come. In some ways, born free was lucky that ZSL never extended out their elephant and rhino paddocks as planned, as I think this could have put another decade at least on housing elephant and rhino at the site, even with the loss of a keeper's life.
The cat terraces is fair comment by zoocheck, but I think the real drive behind their statement is the knowledge that a new exhibit will permit tigers to be held in london for many years to come. In some ways, born free was lucky that ZSL never extended out their elephant and rhino paddocks as planned, as I think this could have put another decade at least on housing elephant and rhino at the site, even with the loss of a keeper's life.
I suppose they must be duty bound to make a critical statement referring to that particular species, each time the zoo announces plans for a new enclosure.
But surely they realise the Zoo will continue exhibiting as many of the higher profile animals as possible while it remains open to the public. and its very unrealistic to try and pressurise them into shedding individual species, such as Tigers. The move of Elephants and Rhinos from ZSL was rather a different issue but I suppose 'chipping away' is their only real option.
What a pathetic little bunch are BF, pffffffffffttt! 
If only all their financial resources were put into stopping further loss of biodiversity on Earth or promoting zoo animal welfare in conjunction with zoos. It is all so abjectly negative and so ahum ****** PREDICTABLE!
And as sure ego-centrists go inside BF ... if you do not agree with them, you are against them (a bit like that no-no GWBush)! Tunnelvision without relief!
If only all their financial resources were put into stopping further loss of biodiversity on Earth or promoting zoo animal welfare in conjunction with zoos. It is all so abjectly negative and so ahum ****** PREDICTABLE!
And as sure ego-centrists go inside BF ... if you do not agree with them, you are against them (a bit like that no-no GWBush)! Tunnelvision without relief!
Or else what? ZSL sends the tigers somewhere else and puts a different species in that enclosure. That might be the best solution all round, provided the tigers go to suitable places (it's certainly the cheapest solution).
Alan
johnstoni
Well-Known Member
To be honest, yes, I agree. There is no reason why the cat terraces wouldn't make a fantastic small cat area, or even with some modification it would suit further primate groups.
I think the reason born free feel there is value in pushing against decisions to renew facilities for species such as tigers is that they were so successful in contributing to the decline of cetaceans and bears in this country, and to some extent elephants. Although there is an argument put forward by many who dislike them that they are simply riding the bandwagon every time, they are in fact a fairly powerful media-savvy pressure group. At the height of the london zoo closure crisis, it was born free who were chosen by the BBC to be the voice of opposition in their televised debate from inside the casson pavilion....if I remember rightly? So I think they do see mileage in this incident with the inspector that has only recently come to light and very possibly was the reason why some of us were hearing from staff of plans to redevelop the cat terraces earlier this year. I think Regents park is a perfectly acceptable place to keep large cats, only I object to this idea of needing £5 million to create a new enclosure. If only born free would listen to us and petition to give the tigers the North Bank!
I think the reason born free feel there is value in pushing against decisions to renew facilities for species such as tigers is that they were so successful in contributing to the decline of cetaceans and bears in this country, and to some extent elephants. Although there is an argument put forward by many who dislike them that they are simply riding the bandwagon every time, they are in fact a fairly powerful media-savvy pressure group. At the height of the london zoo closure crisis, it was born free who were chosen by the BBC to be the voice of opposition in their televised debate from inside the casson pavilion....if I remember rightly? So I think they do see mileage in this incident with the inspector that has only recently come to light and very possibly was the reason why some of us were hearing from staff of plans to redevelop the cat terraces earlier this year. I think Regents park is a perfectly acceptable place to keep large cats, only I object to this idea of needing £5 million to create a new enclosure. If only born free would listen to us and petition to give the tigers the North Bank!
Media savvy powerful group ... Exactly, my reason for viewing them as highly suspect. Besides they do not put their money where their mouths are. They should engage rather than use the media to talk to zoos.
F.i. johnstoni ... just hypothetically (it will never happen as we are both respected forum posters and can reason here without damage and loss of respect amongst ourselves) if I where to publish in the paper about you without ever even talking to you ... you would be hugely miffed (to put it mildly) and quite rightly so!
If BF are so concerned with zoo animal welfare (and not riding the bandwagon to exclude more and more wildlife from our zoos ... whilst pretending all is well in the wild (it is not) ... and equally forgetting that zoos are prime motivators/promotors along with IUCN and WWF to push the Countdown 2010 agenda and funding in situ conservation initiatives, they really should put their money where their mouths are and start spending some hard cash on captive animal facilities instead of talking media all the time!
Starting with funding better animal facilities for elephants, rhinos, giraffes, lions, tigers in true conservation breeding zoos like London Zoo ..... etcetera etcetera etcetera!
Besides this, one should equally be highly suspect of their occupation with high profile mega vertebrates as if reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish and invertebrates are too non-descript to even get a mention in the huge biodiversity tree!
And finally, a group that puts its own ego before any credible conservation objective, be they biodiversity loss, climate change or any other you can reasonably come up with ... like animal welfare, should be treated with utmost caution.
All in all I think this organisation stinks from the bottom up. And might you think they are there for altruistic motives, think again, ... no their elitist view is that all zoos should be shut, and that in an age where our human condition's relation to our environment and its flora-fauna at large is becoming increasingly dislodged from that same environment and we talk credit crisis, banking crisis - for goodness sake it is only money - and forget the real crises like biodiversity loss, habitat encroachment, food insecurity, climate change and last but certainly not least human overpopulation)!
P.S. I should mention that your average new large exhibit in a zoo environment will cost in the order of 3-8 million pounds. Just scan the news for recent new exhibits across all European zoos. In addition, people like you and me expect every year a new attraction - mind a good zoo has 3 major objectives, recreation, education and conservation.
Well, a good day to you all!
Jelle
F.i. johnstoni ... just hypothetically (it will never happen as we are both respected forum posters and can reason here without damage and loss of respect amongst ourselves) if I where to publish in the paper about you without ever even talking to you ... you would be hugely miffed (to put it mildly) and quite rightly so!
If BF are so concerned with zoo animal welfare (and not riding the bandwagon to exclude more and more wildlife from our zoos ... whilst pretending all is well in the wild (it is not) ... and equally forgetting that zoos are prime motivators/promotors along with IUCN and WWF to push the Countdown 2010 agenda and funding in situ conservation initiatives, they really should put their money where their mouths are and start spending some hard cash on captive animal facilities instead of talking media all the time!
Starting with funding better animal facilities for elephants, rhinos, giraffes, lions, tigers in true conservation breeding zoos like London Zoo ..... etcetera etcetera etcetera!
Besides this, one should equally be highly suspect of their occupation with high profile mega vertebrates as if reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish and invertebrates are too non-descript to even get a mention in the huge biodiversity tree!
And finally, a group that puts its own ego before any credible conservation objective, be they biodiversity loss, climate change or any other you can reasonably come up with ... like animal welfare, should be treated with utmost caution.
All in all I think this organisation stinks from the bottom up. And might you think they are there for altruistic motives, think again, ... no their elitist view is that all zoos should be shut, and that in an age where our human condition's relation to our environment and its flora-fauna at large is becoming increasingly dislodged from that same environment and we talk credit crisis, banking crisis - for goodness sake it is only money - and forget the real crises like biodiversity loss, habitat encroachment, food insecurity, climate change and last but certainly not least human overpopulation)!
P.S. I should mention that your average new large exhibit in a zoo environment will cost in the order of 3-8 million pounds. Just scan the news for recent new exhibits across all European zoos. In addition, people like you and me expect every year a new attraction - mind a good zoo has 3 major objectives, recreation, education and conservation.
Well, a good day to you all!
Jelle
taun
Well-Known Member
Hear, hear. London are trying to improve there tigers life by building this new enclosure, yet it comes under critisism for doing so!
We have to bear in mind that London Zoo is in a urban situation and therefore and developments are going to cost more then of a similar zoo in a rural location.
About London Zoo:
Is a problem is anything else than personality clash of two particular tigers? I haven't been to London zoo since ages, but they at time kept and bred Sumatran tigers without problem.
About Born Free:
I will use their own logic: one nonsense proves that this organization is failure and should not be listened to. Is there any way a charity which lies in public to get donations (which people wouldn't give otherwise) can be stopped?
Is a problem is anything else than personality clash of two particular tigers? I haven't been to London zoo since ages, but they at time kept and bred Sumatran tigers without problem.
About Born Free:
I will use their own logic: one nonsense proves that this organization is failure and should not be listened to. Is there any way a charity which lies in public to get donations (which people wouldn't give otherwise) can be stopped?
taun
Well-Known Member
According to the press release about the new find raising campaign, it was noted in a zoo inspection that something needed to be done about there enclosure becasue the tigers had wounds on them from fights that had broken out.
1. The enclosure is dated now.
2. They've only bred one Sumatran tiger in the past.xxx.. years.(12?)
3. The current pair of Tigers appear incompatable though this female has bred at her previous home(Dudley) where she is being sent back to.
These three points are not necessarily connected but all contribute to the current troubles...
2. They've only bred one Sumatran tiger in the past.xxx.. years.(12?)
3. The current pair of Tigers appear incompatable though this female has bred at her previous home(Dudley) where she is being sent back to.
These three points are not necessarily connected but all contribute to the current troubles...
MARK
Well-Known Member
You are quite correct Pertinax in what you have stated above, I aways thought this exhibit was way to small and I feel that in "the era" that it was built things were built that way to save on costs, LZS zoo at Whipsnade never had any trouble breeding Tigers and they have bred many.
I have always had the feeling that London zoo has lagged behind other major world zoos for many decedes and this was one of the main reasons why there was a big turn down in attendance for such a long time, maybe now after such a long time of stagnation they are stepping out in the right direction with the new Gorllia exhibit, I hope so
Last edited: