Yes absolutely. The adjacent former hyrax/weaver enclosure has also gone.
Didn`t see any Colobus nor Porcupines either. One Warthog remains.
Two Marabou, nothing else in that aviary.
More logs and sticks in enclosures than animals!!
Weeds everywhere, John Knowles would be shocked to see it like that.
I don`t want to be negative about this place and it really saddens me to be , but there is no choice, that is the reality of the place. The higher management need to wake up to what is really going on there, they need to listen to the visitors and make some drastic changes, otherwise it will continue to decline.
What the hell is happening at Marwell? If, hypothetically, a Canadian zoo enthusiast was to visit Great Britain in a few years...then should he bother with Marwell or concentrate on various other zoos and skip the former home of John Knowles? It seems that there are a lot of empty exhibits and disappointing sections to the zoo.
What the hell is happening at Marwell? If, hypothetically, a Canadian zoo enthusiast was to visit Great Britain in a few years...then should he bother with Marwell or concentrate on various other zoos and skip the former home of John Knowles? It seems that there are a lot of empty exhibits and disappointing sections to the zoo.
I would suggest to a hypothetical Canadian zoo nerd that if he were to visit Great Britain on a zoo trip, the best thing to do would be to head to Folkestone and get the Channel Tunnel to mainland Europe - I rather fear that what is on offer in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Poland and the Czech Republic knocks our rather paltry British offerings into a cocked hat.
If the hypothetical Canadian nerd was insistent on "doing" Britain, my personal opinion would be that Marwell - as it currently is - would come an awfully long way down the list of places to see.
There are an awful lot of 'formers' on Nanook's photo list here. What surprises me is all these vacant enclosures- enclosures sitting empty are usually anathema to Zoo managements, but seems not the case here.
There are an awful lot of 'formers' on Nanook's photo list here. What surprises me is all these vacant enclosures- enclosures sitting empty are usually anathema to Zoo managements, but seems not the case here.
There were also a lot more "former enclosures" that have been covered up by boards or filled with horns and skeletons or just crazy things like keeper`s boots!!
They seem to think that all you need is a handful of flagship conservation species - just look after them, and let the rest go to pot!! Spend lots of money on species they already have, don`t bother about bringing any new species in or anything else and get rid of the animals they don`t want, let the place fall apart and look like a shambles. What they don`t realise is that people will only visit TO SEE ANIMALS - AND LOTS OF THEM!!!
There were also a lot more "former enclosures" that have been covered up by boards or filled with horns and skeletons or just crazy things like keeper`s boots!!
They seem to think that all you need is a handful of flagship conservation species - just look after them, and let the rest go to pot!! Spend lots of money on species they already have, don`t bother about bringing any new species in or anything else and get rid of the animals they don`t want, let the place fall apart and look like a shambles. What they don`t realise is that people will only visit TO SEE ANIMALS - AND LOTS OF THEM!!!
The only question I would ask is, are the general public turning against the new-look, largely animal-free Marwell? How are the visitor numbers at the place holding up? They haven't produced an annual report for several years, as far as i know, and so it is hard to track this. When I visited last month - for one of the most depressing zoo visits I have had in a long time - the car park seemed reasonably full (as it should have been, in July, the day after the opening of a major new exhibit). Given its size and location, I would certainly argue that Marwell could and should be getting many, many visitors: plonk down Paira Daiza, or even Gaiapark Kerkrade, in the middle of the Hampshire countryside, and you'd be nudging a million, I am sure.
Do the powers-that-be at the place think they are doing a good job, though? I don't just mean the senior staff, but the trustees (or whatever they're called)? What are the KPIs by which they judge the zoo's performance? Attendance is surely a major one. Hence my interest in how the figure looks....
The only question I would ask is, are the general public turning against the new-look, largely animal-free Marwell? How are the visitor numbers at the place holding up? They haven't produced an annual report for several years, as far as i know, and so it is hard to track this. When I visited last month - for one of the most depressing zoo visits I have had in a long time - the car park seemed reasonably full (as it should have been, in July, the day after the opening of a major new exhibit). Given its size and location, I would certainly argue that Marwell could and should be getting many, many visitors: plonk down Paira Daiza, or even Gaiapark Kerkrade, in the middle of the Hampshire countryside, and you'd be nudging a million, I am sure.
Do the powers-that-be at the place think they are doing a good job, though? I don't just mean the senior staff, but the trustees (or whatever they're called)? What are the KPIs by which they judge the zoo's performance? Attendance is surely a major one. Hence my interest in how the figure looks....
Some good questions - well I know for certain that visitors have complained to staff about the lack of animals. Do they think they are doing a good job ? I would say yes they probably do, but are "out of touch" with the reality of the situation on the ground. Visitor numbers remain reasonable, but they are definately not as good as they once were. The trustees only know what they are told by others.
