Howletts Wild Animal Park John Aspinall + Naturalistic Exhibits

[gentle lemur]

We are never going to agree here - at least until the critics visit the establishments they have criticised so much from thousands of miles away. I'm afraid that this 'discussion' is getting very repetitious.
Architecture is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The results of the Aspinall collections are due to good husbandry. Mr Aspinall was unqualified, but not uneducated - he was sent down for going to the races instead of taking his schools at Oxford. I am sure that he also had an instinctive empathy with his animals - in the same way as a gardener can have 'green fingers'. As I have said previously,some of his success with gorillas was due to keeping them in large social groups and to the quality and variety of their diet. It is no accident that he had similar successes with African elephants, clouded leopards, various langur species, Malayan tapirs, black rhinos and ratels - none of which are easy species to manage in captivity. To be fair, there have been failures or only limited achievements with other species, but I don't think any animal collection has ever had a 100% record of success.

Alan

 

[Zooplantman]

I think that this thread has revealed more about us then it has about animal husbandry or exhibit design.
I looked at the pictures of Howlett's gorilla cages and will say they are not to my liking. But it must be terrific watching a large family group of gorillas in such complex multilevel environments. The gorillas do not care what the scenery around them is if, as @gentle lemur writes, the social group, space, diet, enrichment opportunities, etc. etc. are right. It is we who have these backward, tight limitations in our thinking and the need to argue, be "right" (what is that any way???) and categorize or rate exhibits. As a result, we become incapable of new thoughts.
If the question is which approach works better for the animals, I believe that the answer may be "either one, equally." If the question is, as @snowleopard first proposed, which one works better for conservation education... well, nothing has been said here to address that question and I wonder whether anyone can produce the visitor study to prove it one way or the other. The tossing about of prejudices is not discussion.

 

[Jurek7]

I think the sight of gorillas so close, their human-like apperance and intelligence, physical power of males and their relaxed behavior - it creates awe and interest in them. Add to this the legend of Aspinall being friend with his animals.

So Aspinall parks arise interest and desire to protect gorillas - without recreating any natural habitat in between.

The book "Zoo: A History of Zoological Gardens in the West" discusses how at one time the general public became less violent within animal attractions because "the new zoos without bars played a part in this change". Also, there is the notion that "caged animals, imprisoned and diminished, provoke mockery, species in semi-liberty retain their dignity and arouse interest" (page 218).

Oh, not that book again... I claim to be no expert in zoo history, but I read totally different things. Actually, the public in 19. early 20. century, viewing lions and first great apes close-up in cages, was even more awed and excited than todays people blazed by TV.

Zoos in mid 20. century started caring more about health of animals and keeping visitors away. Ban on feeding and petting animals was enforced to stop food poisoning. Glass for primates was introduced to protect them from catching human diseases, like common cold and flu. Important was that until 1970's most monkeys and apes reached zoos as ex-pets, they were humanized and unable to interact normally with their own. When most primates became normal, socialized animals, their interest in visitors diminished.

It all happened when monkey houses were still barren, sand, tile and bare branches (to protect from parasites). Naturalistic enclosures for primates, with vegetation and moated islands, appeared several decades later.

 

[Jose]

I think the visitors at Howletts seemed to be the most respectful to the animals out of all the zoos I've visited. I agree that this is possibly due to the far off barriers, off-show houses etc.

That seemed to be the case on my visits many years ago to both Howletts and Port lympne , i think there is definitely a great deal more respect for the animals shown by the general public then there would be at a city zoo

 

[Jose]

We are never going to agree here - at least until the critics visit the establishments they have criticised so much from thousands of miles away. I'm afraid that this 'discussion' is getting very repetitious.
Architecture is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The results of the Aspinall collections are due to good husbandry. Mr Aspinall was unqualified, but not uneducated - he was sent down for going to the races instead of taking his schools at Oxford. I am sure that he also had an instinctive empathy with his animals - in the same way as a gardener can have 'green fingers'. As I have said previously,some of his success with gorillas was due to keeping them in large social groups and to the quality and variety of their diet. It is no accident that he had similar successes with African elephants, clouded leopards, various langur species, Malayan tapirs, black rhinos and ratels - none of which are easy species to manage in captivity. To be fair, there have been failures or only limited achievements with other species, but I don't think any animal collection has ever had a 100% record of success.

Alan

I agree with you gentle lemur my friend , your point of view always seems unbiased and objective and based on facts which makes it of great value to the zoochat community. The criticism would be more constructive from those who have actually visited the parks and seen the enclosures first hand rather then this constant wave of attacks from zoochatters who havent even left their continent.

 

[snowleopard]

Wow, 24 hours later and almost 50 responses! Some great discussion here, and it is truly interesting to read the differing points of view. I agree with Dan, who commented that he loved reading through this thread. There are always going to be disparate beliefs when it comes to zoo enclosures, and there will undoubtedly be many changes to animal exhibits in the future. It is amazing to see the many fashions and alterations in the zoo world, and if people think that gorillas are controversial then check out the outrage over elephants. In the U.S. there will soon be 25 different elephant exhibits that are 3 acres in size or larger, and these days if elephants are in an enclosure that is smaller than an acre there are literally protests outside the zoo. Who knows what elephant or gorilla habitats will look like in 30 years? Back in 1979 Seattle was the first zoo to ever give gorillas grass, in an all-naturalistic pair of exhibits, and so what will zoos give gorillas 30 years from today? Cell phones and ipods? Enclosures that are 5-acre replicas of the Congo? Who knows?

Looking through the Howletts gallery I see that I have given praise to a number of exhibits, and as a kid I used to love the idea of owning not one but two massive parks. The gelada baboon/colobus monkey, black rhino, African elephant, red river hog (huge woodland paddock!), lion-tailed macaque, black-and-white ruffed lemur, etc, are all enclosures that are worth many positive comments in the ZooChat gallery. The hoofstock paddocks are all very simply designed, but they are more than adequate and great for the animals. The majority of the Howletts park is very effective, and the large quantities of various species is impressive. I know that there are a few members of this site who admire quite a few things about both the Aspinall parks, with only the gorilla and carnivore cages seemingly outdated. But of course that is simply an opinion, and not every zoo in the world is following the naturalistic trend.

 

[MARK]

I have been to both of these zoos and the thing that really stood out in my mind was that these animals were really thriving, When I look at the animals there they look so well, cared for above and beyond many zoos collections, when I got taken into the "cold room" for the Sumatran rhinos years ago and was shown the many tropical friuts that were flown in every few days just for them I knew this place was special.

John had a real feel for these animals and in many cases was right, while we have major zoos like London who have been around for such a long time and still seem to be struggling to put together a Gorilla group and then see Howletts "Groups" who are just thriving having bred more than 100 and who also have returned some of them back into the wild, well my friends I just take my hat off to John and his two zoos.

 

[Pertinax]

I didn't touch on diets in this discussion, as its been mainly about enclosure design, but it is true that JA lived a lavish lifestyle and fed his animals equally lavishly.

Back in the 1980's when I saw the huge variety and quality of fruits, vegetables and tree browse their Gorillas were being fed, it was far superior to the quite 'spartan' diets of fruit, bread, potatoes, monkeychow etc, being offered at some of the other zoos like London or Bristol at the time. Young Gorillas at Howletts flourished and I'm sure this difference was diet related, at least in part. All the other Howletts stock was fed equally well too.

 

[MARK]

I have a book from Howletts which lists the Gorillas diet, it's amazing

 

[Cat-Man]

Wow, 24 hours later and almost 50 responses! Some great discussion here, and it is truly interesting to read the differing points of view. I agree with Dan, who commented that he loved reading through this thread. There are always going to be disparate beliefs when it comes to zoo enclosures, and there will undoubtedly be many changes to animal exhibits in the future. It is amazing to see the many fashions and alterations in the zoo world, and if people think that gorillas are controversial then check out the outrage over elephants. In the U.S. there will soon be 25 different elephant exhibits that are 3 acres in size or larger, and these days if elephants are in an enclosure that is smaller than an acre there are literally protests outside the zoo. Who knows what elephant or gorilla habitats will look like in 30 years? Back in 1979 Seattle was the first zoo to ever give gorillas grass, in an all-naturalistic pair of exhibits, and so what will zoos give gorillas 30 years from today? Cell phones and ipods? Enclosures that are 5-acre replicas of the Congo? Who knows?

Mabey snowleopard my canadian friend, i'd like to see lemurs with ipods listning to I LIKE TO MOVE IT MOVE IT and other MADAGASCAR! songs

 

[Tim May]

Unlike some contributors, I am reluctant to criticise zoo exhibits that I haven’t seen. However, as somebody who has visited Howletts many times over the years, and has also seen the much praised gorilla exhibits at both Bronx Zoo and Disney’s Animal Kingdom, I’ll make a few comments.

Certainly the gorilla exhibits at Bronx and Disney are beautifully designed and extremely impressive; they are superb exhibits. Without doubt, as exhibits, they are superior to those at Howletts; even the most loyal Howletts aficionado would be unlikely to describe the Howletts’ gorilla cages as aesthetically pleasing.

I doubt, though, that the accommodation provided by either of these American exhibits is actually any better for the gorillas than that at Howletts. The considerable success that Howletts achieves is proof that the Howletts gorilla husbandry works and works very well. It obviously suits the gorillas and that, surely, is much more important than the superficial appearance of the cages.

In the earlier thread, in the photo gallery, I was surprised at how readily those who criticised the Howletts style cages resorted to anthropomorphism; the use of such emotive language as "evokes thoughts of a human prison" or “mini-Alcatraz” when describing the Howletts gorilla accommodation is neither fair nor objective.

Surely as long as the animals are well looked after and are kept in accommodation that is suitable for them, there is room for both types of gorilla exhibits. I much appreciate the pseudo-naturalistic gorilla exhibits of some American zoos, but I also appreciate the Howletts style cages too. The diversity of zoo architecture helps make visiting different zoos interesting; it would be very boring all zoos exhibited their animals in similar ways.

 

[Bele]

Another aspect of getting close up to the gorillas at Howletts , which to me is always a magical experience , is that you get to smell them also . A very distinctive aroma . The original walled garden area , with the soft fruits and other crops being grown solely for the gorillas , is very special and has to be experienced to appreciate it .

 

[Pertinax]

Another aspect of getting close up to the gorillas at Howletts , which to me is always a magical experience , is that you get to smell them also . A very distinctive aroma . The original walled garden area , with the soft fruits and other crops being grown solely for the gorillas , is very special and has to be experienced to appreciate it .

Love that smell! You can sometimes even get a whiff of it from the road outside as you drive past the kitchen garden area. You are right about that Walled Garden- a unique place by any estimation.

 

[Zambar]

I must agree with the above two comments, I loved that aroma the kitchen garden area produced, and I thought the way the burmese python vivaria had been built into the area was very well done. This, combined with the walled garden at Cotswold and Marwell's World of Lemurs which is built within the halls kitchen gardens, prove that walled garden areas of country homes provide both a beneficial and nostalgic area to build enclosures in.

 

[Jurek7]

Back in 1979 Seattle was the first zoo to ever give gorillas grass

BTW, Aspinall said specifically that gorillas don't like to walk on grass. In rainforest they don't (there is no grass growing on rainforest floor).

I wonder if other gorilla keepers agree with it?

 

[Pertinax]

Back in 1979 Seattle was the first zoo to ever give gorillas grass,

I'm not sure they were the first anywhere, as against in the USA. Apenheul in Holland first received Gorillas in 1975 and their big grassy island was the only exhibit they've had to date as far as I know, however I'm not sure exactly when it opened but it may have been before '79.

 

[Tim May]

Back in 1979 Seattle was the first zoo to ever give gorillas grass

I don’t know what zoo was the first to give gorillas access to grass, but it certainly wasn’t Seattle Zoo in 1979.

Seven years earlier, in 1972, London Zoo opened the Sobell Pavilions (replacing the old 1927 Monkey House); the relatively small outside cages for all the primates (including gorillas) in the Sobell Pavilions had grass floors.

 

[CZJimmy]

I don’t know what zoo was the first to give gorillas access to grass, but it certainly wasn’t Seattle Zoo in 1979.

Seven years earlier, in 1972, London Zoo opened the Sobell Pavilions (replacing the old 1927 Monkey House); the relatively small outside cages for all the primates (including gorillas) in the Sobell Pavilions had grass floors.

Chester also kept their gorillas on grassy islands in the 60s

 

[Pertinax]

Chester also kept their gorillas on grassy islands in the 60s

How on earth did I overrlook that????

Also Twycross had grass floors right from the start also.

London Zoo's Sobells had a flooring of concrete blocks that were like slabs of chocolate annd the grass grew through them. Later they just covered the whole floor with straw litter a la Howlettts.

I think Woodland Park Seattle were (justly) credited with the first 'naturalistic' Gorilla enclosure (as opposed to just a grass floor) I remember reading two old bear pits were planted out and the vegetation allowed to establish for a year before the Gorillas were moved in.

 

[johnstoni]

I am in no way endorsing John Aspinall or any of his associates, but Howletts and Port Lympne provide good examples of privately-funded zoo animal habitats for europe. I think that if there had been steady but unremarkable breeding in the Gorilla groups, it would be a very different argument. What a lot of posters have noticed in the UK collections holding gorillas is that the second-most successful appears to be Chessington, which holds this species in accommodation modelled on the Howletts complex, although much smaller overall.

Furthermore, Port Lympne has been an interesting experiment in gorilla habitats as it is one of the few collections where they have a choice of two very different outdoor exhibits (deep-straw lined cage complexes with access to open paddocks). The breeding group has it's open enclosure set in semi-woodland, but both the bachelors and the breeding group spend very little time in the open-topped habitats unless they are being fed there.

Congo Gorilla forest appears to offer enough canopy cover in an open-topped setting to allow for relaxed gorilla groups which are not so reluctant to use the outdoor space. Am I wrong on this? Are they shut outside, and if not, what percentage of time do they spend in the main exhibits outside feeding times? And what is the breeding record since the exhibit opened?

A point was made about research into visitor perception of animals displayed in contexts varying from unnatural-looking cage environments to immersion exhibits replicating natural habitat. I think this is very important, and highlights the irony of the aspinall collections.....there was so little regard for the visitor experiences during the John Aspinall reign that the gorilla enclosures, arguably designed to provide the most natural 'representation' of habitat for the gorillas, ended up looking like the most barren and inhospitable zoo block to anyone with no understanding of their behaviour or biology.

The deep litter was not just laid down for enrichment, the straw is left to ferment and generate heat, while fresh layers are constantly added until whole sections are cleared after a number of months.

I think a truly pioneering exhibit would be a combination of the Congo Gorilla forest as a showpiece/interpretation exhibit with an adjoining outdoor cage the size of Port Lympnes 'palace of the apes' (although preferably a cage with no glass visitor gallery).

In comparing elephant exhibits in the US with Gorilla exhibits.....I disagree. Gorillas do not encounter as many mental and physical health issues as captive elephhants these days and as a result there is not the same popular movement against keeping them in captivity. As a recent study in the UK demonstrated, a tiny percentage of captive elephants here are without joint problems, even those born in captivity, and I would be surprised if there wasn't a similar situation in the USA.