Empty enclosures

[J C]

Just thinking given the recent posts at Paignton regarding empty enclosures and the negitive effect this has on the zoo in the general public eyes and then to trip advisor. People on here I’m sure see past them and have an understanding surrounding the reasons for them in most cases. However it is becoming a growing problem with the older more established collections ie Marwell, ZSL, Twycross and Paignton whilst newer collections YWP and Hamilton don’t have these problems so better review as they aren’t old enough to go out of a species. I think these collections need to improve this by allowing for the demolition or repopulation of these exhibits as they are emptied to prevent this negitive publicity take for example chesters lions as sone as they where moved into there new exhibit demolition began on there old one hence no empty enclosure where as with Twycross built chimp Eden and left two sizeable enclosure empty thus the shine was taken of with most new visitors complaining about empty enclosures

 

[Panthera1981]

I think you can pretty much blame the architect for some of these case studies, and the inevitable Listed status that follows. London’s a prime example. However, Bristol and Dudley ought to be commended as being two “old” establishments who’ve had the gumption to repurpose some of their buildings to house new species.

Im looking forward with some trepidation as to how the “new” Snowden and Whipsnade’s sealion exhibit turn out.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Im looking forward with some trepidation as to how the “new” Snowden and Whipsnade’s sealion exhibit turn out.

Somehow I think you'll end up being disappointed.

 

[FBBird]

Somehow I think you'll end up being disappointed.

I have hopes for the Snowdon.......just watch and learn, we may all be pleasantly surprised.

 

[AdrianW1963]

I was told on my last visit that Snowdon would more than likely revert back to a bird aviary but will still be updated but not to the original extreme.

 

[J C]

This is what I’m getting at for all the good work the collections do in new enclosures or removal of animals in inadequate enclosures leaving there older enclosures empty just undoubtedly over shadow them such as the snowdon and sone to be the sea lions at whipsnade which is being teased as a new species to inhabit there enclosure but shortly it would be better to name this species rather than a mistory which will more than likely mean an empty enclose for at least a year or two till they figure out what to place there

 

[gentle lemur]

There may be perfectly good reasons to leave an enclosure empty for a period, even for quite a long period: but I believe that visitors should always be informed of those reasons. Visitors deserve, and will accept, sensible explanations.
I saw a few bad examples this week - the giant Pacific octopus exhibits at both the Blue Planet (Ellesmere Port) and the National Sea Life Centre (Birmingham) and the old sea lion exhibit at Whipsnade. In each case visitors were looking into the exhibits and seeing nothing, which is bound to be disappointing. ZooChatters know that all octopus species have short lives, most people do not. So the permanent label for an octopus tank should make this very clear, and when the inevitable happens a prominent temporary notice should announce the fact, perhaps referring to the label and making some statement about the future (such as cleaning and refurbishment of the tank or plans for showing another specimen or another species). At least in these examples visitors only wasted a minute or two, I think the Whipsnade example is worse because the big illustrated signs were still beside the path, so I could see parties turning off to walk up to the side of the pool. I didn't follow them, so I don't know if they saw a sign there saying that the sea lions had gone, but they were looking around for a minute or two before moving off. Of course some people will have watched the ITV programmes which featured the sea lion keeper's preparations for their departure, but some will not. Whey were those signs not taken down or covered up as soon as the animals left?

 

[TeaLovingDave]

One frustrating variation on this theme is letting a vacant exhibit get more and more overgrown, and once it has become thick with vegetation removing the bars/walls and any other indication there was ever an exhibit there in the first place, or (when there is no way of hiding the fact an exhibit was formerly present) letting it get more and more overgrown and then adding a sign saying something to the effect of "this exhibit has been allowed to get overgrown so that we do our bit for local biodiversity" both of these being rather rife at Edinburgh these days, sad to say.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

One frustrating variation on this theme is letting a vacant exhibit get more and more overgrown, and once it has become thick with vegetation removing the bars/walls and any other indication there was ever an exhibit there in the first place, or (when there is no way of hiding the fact an exhibit was formerly present) letting it get more and more overgrown and then adding a sign saying something to the effect of "this exhibit has been allowed to get overgrown so that we do our bit for local biodiversity" both of these being rather rife at Edinburgh these days, sad to say.

Good marketing though.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Good marketing though.

Not really as they don't exactly publicise the fact they do this, and it's pretty transparent that this isn't the genuine motive given the poster in question suggests it will promote the presence of species which would certainly not be found in such a small, overgrown clump of vegetation (especially when it is also filled with tacky dinosaur models, a detail I had forgotten):



There's also the slight variant of "knock it all down, let it get overgrown and hide as much of it as possible with billboards" as they did with the entire carnivore row, of course.....

.....and here's another example showing the "let it get so overgrown we can hide it was ever an exhibit" style:



But sometimes they just leave the exhibit completely empty and as-is and merely chuck a load of models into the enclosure



---

All of this isn't even getting into the number of enclosures which are left empty where they merely block visitor access to the paths leading *to* said exhibits - the most notable being the entire original Giant Panda complex.

 

[Zia]

At least the 'cover it in billboards' approach can have some merit in terms of education and / or historical interest.

I would prefer to see Whipsnade put up some information boards and pictures beside the sea lion pool including it's history, why it was designed in the way it was, who it has housed historically, why it is no longer seen fit for purpose for cetaceans / sea lions etc. If they genuinely do have a replacement species in mind they could also make a presentation out of guests working through what would be a suitable species and detailing what works need to be undertaken before they could be housed. They could even turn it into a competition of sorts - outline 3 possible replacements, give the guests information about the strengths and limitations of the enclosure and give the option to guess which species it will be (online form would do it). Winner(s) chosen from all the correct guesses gets a behind the scenes tour / experience of some kind or whatever.

That's got to be better than just leaving it empty for who knows how long.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Not really as they don't exactly publicise the fact they do this, and it's pretty transparent that this isn't the genuine motive given the poster in question suggests it will promote the presence of species which would certainly not be found in such a small, overgrown clump of vegetation (especially when it is also filled with tacky dinosaur models, a detail I had forgotten):

View attachment 463356 View attachment 463357

There's also the slight variant of "knock it all down, let it get overgrown and hide as much of it as possible with billboards" as they did with the entire carnivore row, of course.....

View attachment 463366

.....and here's another example showing the "let it get so overgrown we can hide it was ever an exhibit" style:

View attachment 463358 View attachment 463359

But sometimes they just leave the exhibit completely empty and as-is and merely chuck a load of models into the enclosure

View attachment 463360

---

All of this isn't even getting into the number of enclosures which are left empty where they merely block visitor access to the paths leading *to* said exhibits - the most notable being the entire original Giant Panda complex.

Fair enough

But I have one question to ask, what is the obsession in UK zoos with dinosaurs ?

They are just god awful IMO and look so much better in natural history museums, why not have "living fossils" like tuatara, echidna, chevrotains that are endangered like the Phillipine mouse deer, pig nosed turtles etc. ?

 

[Zia]

Fair enough

But I have one question to ask, what is the obsession in UK zoos with dinosaurs ?

They are just god awful IMO and look so much better in natural history museums, why not have living fossils like tuatara ?

I believe it is because they cost less and families with little kids seem to love them. When you're 6 a load of animatronic dino's is probably going to entertain you longer than a tuatara would.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I believe it is because they cost less and families with little kids seem to love them. When you're 6 a load of animatronic dino's is probably going to entertain you longer than a tuatara would.

True, but there is that kind of thing at natural history museums and theme parks.

A live tuatara (like those at Chester) or pig nosed turtles or a Phillipine mouse deer could be even more educational and made to be interesting than an animatronic dinosaur for many visitors.

I mean what about educational talks and displays and things like that ?

 

[Zia]

True, but there is that kind of thing at natural history museums and theme parks.

A live tuatara (like those at Chester) or pig nosed turtles or a Phillipine mouse deer could be even more educational and made to be interesting than an animatronic dinosaur for many visitors.

I mean what about educational talks and displays and things like that ?

I don't disagree with you - but as I said, it comes down to money. Dino's draw the families. Once they are set up they need minimal maintenance. Actual animal exhibits, educational talks and displays would cost more overall.

There is a reason zoo's have multiple kids parks, soft play areas, lego models and so on. It is because there is clearly demand for it and it brings the families in.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I don't disagree with you - but as I said, it comes down to money. Dino's draw the families. Once they are set up they need minimal maintenance. Actual animal exhibits, educational talks and displays would cost more overall.

There is a reason zoo's have multiple kids parks, soft play areas, lego models and so on. It is because there is clearly demand for it and it brings the families in.

I know, I guess I'm a bit of a purist on the issue of dinosaur models in zoos

 

[TeaLovingDave]

When you're 6 a load of animatronic dino's is probably going to entertain you longer than a tuatara would.

Cheap non-animatronic ones, not so much but given they have decimated their bank accounts with those pandas, they need to save every penny!

 

[Panthera1981]

Cheap non-animatronic ones, not so much but given they have decimated their bank accounts with those pandas, they need to save every penny!

Add to that they become outdated incredibly quickly given how the science evolves. I’d like to think even the most casual visitor would now know that some dinosaurs had feathers, yet these models display otherwise. But that’s the fault of a certain film series persistence against the science and cheap literature.

I support the earlier statement. Honesty certainly is the best policy and visitors will certainly understand and perhaps sympathise. Obviously it helps if the zoo’s got a good PR team behind it.

Not that I’m letting ZSL off the hook here, but the repurposing of the old elephant area for lemurs at Whipsnade has been very successful. However, the less said about the adjoining old elephant house (or rather Lubetkin Shed for storing unwanted Tat) the better!

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Oh the subject of ZSL, they have repurposed that area (I suppose it was once used for enclosures) just off from the Clore Pavilion alongside the side of the canal as a mini nature area for native biodiversity and it is quite well done IMO.

 

[gentle lemur]

Oh the subject of ZSL, they have repurposed that area (I suppose it was once used for enclosures) just off from the Clore Pavilion alongside the side of the canal as a mini nature area for native biodiversity and it is quite well done IMO.

I don't think that there were ever enclosures beside that section of the canal as the ground is quite steep and there are some mature trees there. I have checked a couple of maps back to 1905 and nothing is shown.