ZSL London Zoo ZSL London Zoo News 2016

[oflory]

Considering the Bearded Pigs are liable to disappear within the next year or two, they won't act as a supplementary species for long I fear.

Why was the seemingly pan-European decision taken to castrate them all?

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Why was the seemingly pan-European decision taken to castrate them all?

If memory serves me correctly, a combination of three factors:

1) Decision made to focus on other taxa, in particular the Warty Pig
2) Population was extremely inbred due to low founder numbers.
3) Population was found not to be pure Bornean, with other subspecies having contributed to the founding stock.

 

[Giant Panda]

This is an interesting discussion. Please forgive lengthy post that follows....

Hi sooty mangabey. An enjoyable and thought-provoking post as usual, but it does raise a few points.

2. The extraneous tat described above - which seems to have reached its apotheosis in Land of the Lions - can take precedence over the living animals. David Hancocks once wrote that the actual animal was sometimes only secondary within a zoo exhibit; I fear we are reaching the point where his words are being validated. Some will like this. As is mentioned above, the railway theming is, so far, popular with some visitors. But let us not pretend that it is anything other than gimmicky window-dressing.

Critics of this exhibit seem to be arguing for more animals because that's what visitors want, yet deriding the "gimmicky window-dressing" everyone acknowledges is popular with said visitors. Personally, I'm impressed that London didn't build a whitewashed, Born Free version of the Gir Forest, even if their own isn't entirely realistic. If nothing else, it's neither cartoonish nor borderline racist like so many "cultural" exhibits. It's also significantly better than Dublin's effort.

And I'm not sure Hancocks' views exactly align with your own.

4. ....and connected to this, I just don't think that there are sufficient people at London (or many UK zoos) who are interested in keeping and showing interesting animals for the sake of keeping and showing interesting animals. When the RSCC closed last year, few indeed were the British zoos that were the slightest bit interested in taking on an echidna, a fanaloka, a tarsier - because there just isn't that fascination with biodiversity as a wonder in its own right.

Good!

I won't get into the RSCC (except to say "look how that turned out"), but there are clear benefits for both the animals involved and the long-term sustainability of zoos if they prioritize taxa in established breeding programmes. I recognize that's an unpopular view amongst zoo enthusiasts (at least those of the IZES ilk), but if Tim Clutton-Brock's group can study meerkats for 30 years and still find interesting things to say about them, the enthusiasts can suck it up.

Frankly, this has nothing to do with a "fascination with biodiversity", of which an extremely limited approximation of species richness is only one component. It's really about you (and me, and most other ZooChatters) wanting to see rare species. That's fine, of course, but it has a negligible impact on conservation, education, welfare and the bottom line. In other words, it's an all-round poor basis for a £5m investment.

On a related point: to the poster who suggested five small cat species were a superior substitute… Firstly, I can only imagine the success of that fundraising campaign(!); secondly, it hardly represents a diverse collection; thirdly, small, shy taxa are emphatically not what zoos as busy as London should prioritize in their collection plans.

5. Any zoo visitor knows that they cannot guarantee which beasts will be visible, active, doing interesting things, on any given visit. Yesterday, the binturongs were snoozing. Today, the kusimanse are not to be seen. Tomorrow, the striped hyaena are invisible. But, if there is a large collection, then something will be active, something will be showing itself. If all of your animal eggs are in one basket - as with London's tigers - then, if the tigers are inactive (as they often are) then you are simply left with an empty-looking tiger exhibit.

This last point seems, to me, to be the crucial one. If the tiger thing had, as part of its general area, an aviary of south-east Asian birds, some rodent displays, a binturong or two, maybe those who weren't lucky enough to see the tigers in action might see the other things. To be fair, the gorilla and lion areas do have other species, which is good (although in each case it has been done rather crack-handedly).

If anything, this is a point in favour of Land of the Lions. ZSL have built two enclosures for a large group of perhaps their most popular animals. In other words, they've stacked the deck in favour of visitors seeing a lion and even, on rare occasions, seeing one do something more than sleep. I think your average visitor would value that above even the most active tarsier or fanaloka. It would've been nice to see a larger supporting cast, however.

It is remarkable to see that Colchester Zoo now receives more than 900,000 visitors a year - and it is notable that at Colchester one is pretty much guaranteed to see things...

They don't exactly avoid "extraneous tat" though, do they?

 

[sooty mangabey]

Thank you for your thoughtful and measured response to my earlier post, Giant Panda. To pick up on a few of your points and comments....

Critics of this exhibit seem to be arguing for more animals because that's what visitors want, yet deriding the "gimmicky window-dressing" everyone acknowledges is popular with said visitors. Personally, I'm impressed that London didn't build a whitewashed, Born Free version of the Gir Forest, even if their own isn't entirely realistic. If nothing else, it's neither cartoonish nor borderline racist like so many "cultural" exhibits. It's also significantly better than Dublin's effort.

I think a problem with the Hannoverian approach - lots of cultural background stuff to contextualise the animals on display - is that it presents one story, one way of viewing what's on show. Thus, while people will like it, once they've seen it, they've seen it.

(There are other problems too - although I have not yet seen Land of the Lions for myself, and thus cannot comment on the extent to which it has avoided the patronising, possibly rather racist, and certainly somewhat infantile tone of similar exhibits elsewhere).

And I'm not sure Hancocks' views exactly align with your own.

The Hancocks thing is the suggestion that animals are not necessarily what a zoo should entirely be about. Rather, does he not go on about the need to represent and suggest "the wild", with animals being only a part of that? It's a view (and an approach) that sends a chill down my spine!

I won't get into the RSCC (except to say "look how that turned out"), but there are clear benefits for both the animals involved and the long-term sustainability of zoos if they prioritize taxa involved in established breeding programmes. I recognize that's an unpopular view amongst zoo enthusiasts (at least those of the IZES ilk), but if Tim Clutton-Brock's group can study meerkats for 30 years and still find interesting things to say about them, the enthusiasts can suck it up.

Frankly, this has nothing to do with a "fascination with biodiversity", of which an extremely limited approximation of species richness is only one component. It's really about you (and me, and most other ZooChatters) wanting to see rare species. That's fine, of course, but it has a negligible impact on conservation, education, welfare and the bottom line. In other words, it's an all-round poor basis for a £5m investment.

This is all very fair comment. However, where I would, possibly fundamentally, disagree (and I realise that I am very much in a minority here) is that I am not really so worried about the impact on conservation or even education. I simply like the idea of there being very broad collections of wild animals for people to see. I realise that might sound a bit 19th century to some. I suppose the key point I was trying to make is that I am always stunned at how many people working within zoos – including those in very senior positions – have very little interest in animals (although they might be very interested in zoology, or conservation).

If anything, this is a point in favour of Land of the Lions. ZSL have built two enclosures for a large group of perhaps their most popular animals. In other words, they've stacked the deck in favour of visitors seeing a lion and even, on rare occasions, seeing one do something more than sleep. I think your average visitor would value that above even the most active tarsier or fanaloka. It would've been nice to see a larger supporting cast, however.

I wholly agree with this point. From both a display and an animal management point of view, having more than one space available for the Lions is a good move. And it doesn't preclude having a small group of blackbuck, for example, as well! ( possibly leaving out the overnight lodgings would have allowed such inclusion!).

They don't exactly avoid "extraneous tat" though, do they?

A very fair comment (about Colchester)! However, it's a different sort of tat that can be seen there: whereas London appear to be going down the ethnographic route, as seen in Hanover and, in years gone by, elsewhere, Colchester instead just have extraordinary rockwork, cage furnishings, and decoration. None of this is altogether wonderful or aesthetically pleasing, but it does not take away from the fact that in Essex can be seen a collection of genuine diversity.

 

[pipaluk]

Giant Panda - my suggestion of 5 small cat species was just an example of what could have taken up the space they've chosen to occupy with the tat and those lodges. It could be 5 of any mammals really!

The fact that Colchester, which has nothing like the catchment population of London (& has London as a rival over much of that area) is approaching a million visitors a year, is down to many visitors considering it to be a better zoo. All casual zoo visitors I've spoken to would confirm this. Most who go to London are disappointed!

 

[Giant Panda]

I think a problem with the Hannoverian approach - lots of cultural background stuff to contextualise the animals on display - is that it presents one story, one way of viewing what's on show. Thus, while people will like it, once they've seen it, they've seen it.

(There are other problems too - although I have not yet seen Land of the Lions for myself, and thus cannot comment on the extent to which it has avoided the patronising, possibly rather racist, and certainly somewhat infantile tone of similar exhibits elsewhere).

I've never heard this argument before, but I'm inclined to think the view through a window is unaffected by the window-frame (if you catch my drift). Aside from the disdain for landscape immersion, I'm not sure what exhibition style you prefer, so here's an old photo of the Lion Terraces:

http://www.zoochat.com/43/london-zoo-2001-asiatic-lion-exhibit-197695/

From an exhibitry perspective, this only shows lions in one way, too. I may be missing your point, but I'm not sure how the Gujarati paraphernalia reduces its repeat value.

And I like Hannover, actually, although the "culture" of its Asian exhibit is rather more generic (and thus antithetical to the concept of culture) than London's appears to be. I also won't be seeing Land of the Lions for a few months, though, so can't defend it too strongly.

This is all very fair comment. However, where I would, possibly fundamentally, disagree (and I realise that I am very much in a minority here) is that I am not really so worried about the impact on conservation or even education. I simply like the idea of there being very broad collections of wild animals for people to see. I realise that might sound a bit 19th century to some. I suppose the key point I was trying to make is that I am always stunned at how many people working within zoos – including those in very senior positions – have very little interest in animals (although they might be very interested in zoology, or conservation).

I think our disagreement probably is fundamental, but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless. You enjoy zoos in the way you enjoy them and I can't pretend I don't also derive pleasure from seeing rare species and comprehensive collections. In my opinion, however, neither should be a priority for 21st century zoos.

Actually, I also share your minority view that zoos don't need to engage in education or conservation. I think they should, but the only ethical justification I need for their existence is that animal welfare isn't compromised. If welfare is compromised, I find that justification very difficult, regardless of education/conservation.

A very fair comment (about Colchester)! However, it's a different sort of tat that can be seen there: whereas London appear to be going down the ethnographic route, as seen in Hanover and, in years gone by, elsewhere, Colchester instead just have extraordinary rockwork, cage furnishings, and decoration. None of this is altogether wonderful or aesthetically pleasing, but it does not take away from the fact that in Essex can be seen a collection of genuine diversity.

Sometimes it's hard to resist a jibe at Colchester, but I disagree that it's more diverse. The public may think so, but ZooChatters are eternally unappreciative of the aspects of London that should appeal to them: undoubtedly the best collections of fish, reptiles and inverts (to take three paraphyletic non-taxa) of any zoo in the country. The bird collection is also one of the best, displayed in perhaps the most tastefully renovated zoo building in the UK (admittedly, that's not saying much). For a zoo smaller than most of its competition in those areas, that's pretty impressive.

Compare today's London to a pre-haemorrhaging Edinburgh, for instance, which was widely commended for its mammal collection, but failed to display "diversity" in any way, shape or form. And, unlike the situation in Edinburgh, ZSL's much-maligned management team has improved the Regent's Park site immeasurably over the last decade.

*climbs onto soapbox*

Do I wish London had the ambition of Leipzig, the self-respect of Schönbrunn or the style of Zurich? Absolutely. Do I think the Mappins, the Casson or the Snowdon Aviary look good? Absolutely not. However, I think a lot of the criticism here is aimed at easy (and perhaps unjustified) targets, whilst the good goes largely unappreciated.

@Pipaluk: Fair enough

 

[sooty mangabey]

I've never heard this argument before, but I'm inclined to think the view through a window is unaffected by the window-frame (if you catch my drift). Aside from the disdain for landscape immersion, I'm not sure what exhibition style you prefer, so here's an old photo of the Lion Terraces:

http://www.zoochat.com/43/london-zoo-2001-asiatic-lion-exhibit-197695/

I just think that exhibits which impose a narrative upon visitors preclude the creation of a visitor's own narrative (which, in some cases, might not be a bad thing....). And I'd certainly never argue that the 1976 Lion Terraces were in any way a good exhibit. Both they and the 1972 Monkey & Ape Pavilions were curiously charmless.

And I like Hannover, actually,

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one - but I fear that the Hannover model is one that, increasingly, other zoos are copying.

Actually, I also share your minority view that zoos don't need to engage in education or conservation. I think they should, but the only ethical justification I need for their existence is that animal welfare isn't compromised. If welfare is compromised, I find that justification very difficult, regardless of education/conservation.

Wholly agree with this argument. If an animal can be kept without compromising its welfare, then why not? And if it can't, it shouldn't be, regardless of its rarity.

I'

Compare today's London to a pre-haemorrhaging Edinburgh, for instance, which was widely commended for its mammal collection, but failed to display "diversity" in any way, shape or form. And, unlike the situation in Edinburgh, ZSL's much-maligned management team has improved the Regent's Park site immeasurably over the last decade.

This is a very fair point. When I and others bemoan the loss of diversity at London, what we primarily mean is the loss of mammalian diversity (even if the bird collection, too, is not what it once was). The overall diversity of the London collection is still second-to-none in the UK.

Do I wish London had the ambition of Leipzig, the self-respect of Schönbrunn or the style of Zurich? Absolutely. Do I think the Mappins, the Casson or the Snowdon Aviary look good? Absolutely not. However, I think a lot of the criticism here is aimed at easy (and perhaps unjustified) targets, whilst the good goes largely unappreciated.

Again, absolutely valid, and wholly fair, comment. Those of us who remember the various closure crises that the zoo faced in the latter part of the last century should be inordinately grateful that it is in such rude health today - and there is no doubt at all that the zoo today is looking and feeling as good as it has for decades. It's just the nagging feeling that it could be even better, with just a little bit of focus on those supporting exhibits surrounding the "big hitters".

 

[volvox]

Most who go to London are disappointed![/QUOTE]

This whole thread is very interesting... I'm not going to contribute but to say most visitors are disappointed is just untrue. The few people who are disappointed and actually complain are largely those who go with unreasonable expectations, don't do any research etc: they feel "let down" because there are no elephants, rhinos etc or whatever their favourite animal is (and they've promised their kids!). Or they rush round and simply don't look so miss everything. Or there is the perennial complaint of no lockers for luggage which hopefully will be remedied one of these days. Most visitors have a brilliant day and often say so.

 

[pipaluk]

Those of us who remember the various closure crises that the zoo faced in the latter part of the last century should be inordinately grateful that it is in such rude health today - and there is no doubt at all that the zoo today is looking and feeling as good as it has for decades. It's just the nagging feeling that it could be even better, with just a little bit of focus on those supporting exhibits surrounding the "big hitters".

This sums up my views regarding London Zoo, almost perfectly!
I think those who instantly leap to the defence of ZSL have the impression that anyone who criticises doesn't like the zoo, when in fact it's quite the opposite!
I am very glad that London Zoo is still open and still visit once or twice a year, but if it was better, I would visit more often. Last year I went to Whipsnade 10 times & Colchester 7 as well as 27 other zoos, if London Zoo was better many of those visits would have been there instead.

 

[pipaluk]

Most who go to London are disappointed!

This whole thread is very interesting... I'm not going to contribute but to say most visitors are disappointed is just untrue. The few people who are disappointed and actually complain are largely those who go with unreasonable expectations, don't do any research etc: they feel "let down" because there are no elephants, rhinos etc or whatever their favourite animal is (and they've promised their kids!). Or they rush round and simply don't look so miss everything. Or there is the perennial complaint of no lockers for luggage which hopefully will be remedied one of these days. Most visitors have a brilliant day and often say so.[/QUOTE]


My comment about most who've been to London being disappointed was in relation to those who had been to more than one zoo and felt London was a poor option when deciding where to go next time!
It wasn't a blanket comment to cover ALL visitors! I'm sure those who don't go anywhere else think it's wonderful.

 

[stulch]

Mappin Terraces

Does anyone know if there are any foundations or anything inside the area of my inner yellow highlighting?

My train of thought was could they develop this less troublesome area!? I was thinking a biome connecting the Mappin cafe with the outer yellow lines.

Cheaper than the whole area, maybe developing the remainder at a much later date, either adding to it or something separate...

Just some late night pondering.

 

[Panthera1981]

Does anyone know if there are any foundations or anything inside the area of my inner yellow highlighting?

My train of thought was could they develop this less troublesome area!? I was thinking a biome connecting the Mappin cafe with the outer yellow lines.

Cheaper than the whole area, maybe developing the remainder at a much later date, either adding to it or something separate...

Just some late night pondering.

Maybe some inner workings of the Aquarium, buts it's probably the only part of the Mappins that could be developed. Even then you're hamstrung with the Listing remit.

Biome perhaps or large aviary. When you consider the Mappin cafe is used for functions, its current state isn't exactly awe-inspiring to look out upon!

 

[gentle lemur]

The overall diversity of the London collection is still second-to-none in the UK.

Counting all species on display, I think this is still true: but if Chester complete Islands as planned and renovate all the vacated enclosures for new species or species that are currently off-show, it could be a very close call by this time next year.

Alan

 

[chrisjpl]

Just back from a visit today - my first since LotL opened (as I was about 5 days too early last time) - apologies for length...

It's just my view (as an entirely non-expert Member who goes approx 15 times a year), but for the most part I think that LotL is really a pretty good effort. The extraneous cultural stuff borders on being excessive, but I think it just about stays the right side of the line and it encourages visitors (especially kids) to learn about where the animal occurs in the wild. A lot of people will come away not just knowing that they saw lions from Asia (or even just "lions"!), but knowing that they saw lions that live wild in the Gir Forest, which is in Gujarat, India. If I'm right, that's no small accomplishment in terms of education.

I also quite liked that the food stall does some broadly Indian snacks. Clearly serving ethnic food is not the core purpose of a zoo, but it's a sensible revenue-raiser, it adds to the atmosphere around the enclosure, and it provides some welcome variety vs other eateries on site.

It's obviously a far better space than the lions had previously (goes without saying really), and in my opinion it's a really very good space. (Makes it frankly embarrassing to see what size of enclosure they keep big cats in at Antwerp, and I'm sure there's plenty worse that I've not seen.) Clearly the females' anxiety about leaving their "old area" and the general settling in time for Bhanu means that it's not yet as good an attraction as it will be - but I see no reason not to believe that the improvement will happen. In time, when they bring the pride together, the combined space should be really excellent. (One downside is that it wasn't clear to me why there was so little opportunity to look down from the second half of the walkway.) I was also pleased to see the quality of the engagement from staff with visitors around the enclosure all day - not people selling stuff, just talking about the animals, showing real knowledge, and sharing recently taken photos on a big digital camera. It may be that these staff are only there while it's new, or until the lions are settled in and therefore provide a better show - but even if so, it made a positive difference.

Echoing what other people have said, I was really pleased that they've included other species around the lions. Not unlike the cats, the hanuman langurs seemed like they're still getting used to being there - but I think they're a really good choice of species, and they're well integrated into the enclosure. Likewise the vultures. I actually really liked how the mongooses were presented, and I think that mongooses are a great choice to hedge the risk of the lions being asleep / out-of-view - given their activity levels, "cuteness", and popularity with kids. But, seriously - and I assume this has been said elsewhere already - dwarf mongooses?! I suppose there must have been compelling reasons for choosing a species that is entirely alien to India, but it really disappointed me - partly because it went completely against the point above about education on the Gir/Gujarat environment. And lastly the muntjac - which are potentially a nice addition (I've always felt that space was a little underused), but need more work to make them feel part of LotL rather than just a neighbouring exhibit of a low-priority animal. Slightly more broadly, I'd have rather seen Chital (or Sambar?) instead to better represent the Gir ecosystem, but I guess there just isn't enough space for that to have been viable.

Anyway, I enjoyed seeing it! I wasn't convinced beforehand that it was the right decision to develop a new lion enclosure. (My personal view had been that London is just too small a site to maintain a good number of smaller exhibits while satisfactorily/humanely keeping lions in addition to tigers and gorillas - and that they should have moved them permanently to Whipsnade or elsewhere.) But I'm happy to say now that I was wrong. Room for improvement of course - but I feel positive about what they've built, and I'm looking forward to watching the lions settle in.

In other news from my visit, I was lucky enough to see a very active 45 minutes from the pottos! (One of my absolute favourite species.) That was from about 1015 to 1100, so my fiancee and I were the only people there to see it - but it was good for us at least! Absolutely no sight whatsoever of the kinkajou though (which leaves me with 0 sightings from c.5 visits).

A couple of questions for people with any insider knowledge or expertise: I assume there's no update yet on the Tree Kangaroo? But do we know when/where the Duikers will go on show? (I'd heard maybe with the Okapis - but no sign of them there today.) Also, is there any plan to have the Serval in a visible enclosure eventually? Thanks in advance for any info...

 

[sooty mangabey]

Edit: I was writing this when Chrisjpl added his thorough comments above - comments which, to me, seem very fair and balanced (even if I don't wholly agree with them all!).

Got to see Land of the Lions yesterday, for the first time. Some thoughts...

• There's no doubt that, for the lions who will live there, this is a vast improvement on what it replaces - and that those lions will look much better here, too.
• The langur enclosure is puzzling - not an enormous amount that is natural in there, which is disappointing - the animals really do seem to have become props.
• The zoogeographic unsuitability of the vultures, muntjac and mongooses continues to puzzle - when this is all so heavily themed on a particular part of the world.
• It is good that a view has been opened up towards the flamingos, and that these are incorporated into the exhibit as a whole.
• The ersatz theming stuff is extraordinary. In places it's done quite well (if you like that sort of thing), but, for example, the market stalls look really artificial (because they are!), while the plastic plants look very, well, plastic. Some of the Bollywood-style posters are already peeling off walls and looking scruffy. I worry how all of this will look in a year or two's time: the maintenance will need to be on-going if it is not to end up looking pretty horrid.
• The interventions of the presenters were, to my mind, excruciatingly embarrassing. At one point, a call went up: "make way, injured lion coming through" - at which point three becostumed folk came through to perform a pantomime about an injured lion and how it would be treated, with a model beast that was convincing enough to trick 50% of the assembled crowd into believing that it was real (which says something pretty scary about the unthinkingness of people, but that's another story....).
• Was the Indian stuff all a bit infantile and tacky? Yes. Was it offensive in its presentation of another country? I don't think so - but I would be very interested to hear what indian visitors think of it all. It does seem like the design is the wining entry in a competition to squeeze in as many cliches as is possible in one space: Curry? Check. Cricket? Check. Bollywood? Check. Ganesh? Check. Trains? Check.
• Did "Normal" Visitors look to be enjoying the whole thing? I think so - although (1) there seemed to be a lot of puzzlement as to what it was all for and (2) - and this really isn't just me engaging in confirmation bias - there was a desperation from some to actually see some animals....

 

[chrisjpl]

[*]The zoogeographic unsuitability of the vultures, muntjac and mongooses continues to puzzle - when this is all so heavily themed on a particular part of the world.

Embarrassingly, I completely missed the zoogeographic discrepancy on the vultures - which certainly is disappointing/frustrating.

As I mentioned, the muntjac felt to me like they were semi-outside the exhibition anyway, which probably isn't ideal in itself, but perhaps makes their Chinese origins slightly less problematic...

 

[ShonenJake13]

In other news from my visit, I was lucky enough to see a very active 45 minutes from the pottos! (One of my absolute favourite species.) That was from about 1015 to 1100, so my fiancee and I were the only people there to see it - but it was good for us at least! Absolutely no sight whatsoever of the kinkajou though (which leaves me with 0 sightings from c.5 visits).

A couple of questions for people with any insider knowledge or expertise: I assume there's no update yet on the Tree Kangaroo? But do we know when/where the Duikers will go on show? (I'd heard maybe with the Okapis - but no sign of them there today.) Also, is there any plan to have the Serval in a visible enclosure eventually? Thanks in advance for any info...

1. You lucky, lucky beggar you. I have always died to see the pottos active for more than three or four minutes :')

2. I am also a regular visitor (I go once or twice a month generally) and I still have yet to see the kinkajou. So join the club!

3. The tree kangaroo will likely remain offshow, due to her being extremely old (at least that's what a contact of mine in Frankfurt, where she came from, said). She's somewhere offshow in the Clore apparently (I would assume she could be in either the adjacent indoor area to the red-faced spider monkeys' new indoor housing, or potentially in the exhibit placed in the middle of the education room in Rainforest Life?

4. The duikers I do not know much about. They're supposedly in with the okapi (hence why for a while their indoor area was off limits due to quarantine purposes most likely) but I still have yet to see them.

5. And the serval is kept with the show animals behind Tiger Territory (where the green-winged macaws etc live). At least I'd assume so as they have previously kept a caracal back there (bear in mind this was about 14 years ago) and after the show it was in I saw it being transported towards that area of the zoo. Not sure if they plan to put it permanently onshow.

 

[Crowthorne]

4. The duikers I do not know much about. They're supposedly in with the okapi (hence why for a while their indoor area was off limits due to quarantine purposes most likely) but I still have yet to see them.

For a while there was a duiker-sized gap in the bottom of the fence between the two okapi paddocks, but it seemed to have been covered over on my last visit a few weeks back

 

[Lemurs]

I visited yesterday. I agree that there is a bit too much erm, furniture around the Land of the Lion walkways. It’s a cool enclosure though and matches up well with the tiger area.

Regarding visitors complaining about no rhinos, elephants etc – I don’t know what percentage of guests are tourists but it will be higher than most zoos. Therefore I don’t think ZSL will be too concerned about them coming back.

For their limited space I think most people would agree that ZSL use the land well. With the gibbons gone my only gripe is that some of the nocturnal primates would benefit from more room. There were slender lorises in the galago exhibit so maybe that’s improving as well.

My highlights were a very active aye-aye and the young tamandua off on his/her own climbing.

 

[chrisjpl]

Lots of activity in the nocturnal areas this morning: both pottos very lively, with good viewing of a galago and an aye-aye also.