ZSL London Zoo London Zoo Crisis of early 1990s

[Shirokuma]

I just watched the Ark DVDs and as I said in that thread, found it very difficult watching in parts.

Can anyone who was around at the time - I was a kid - explain what the issues were that lead to London Zoo being in such a perilous position?

I know bits and pieces but exactly what happened isn't entirely clear to me.

 

[johnstoni.]

I think ZooCheck and the advancement of the animal rights movement had a part to play, though I speak subjectively. I feel personally that London zoo was harmed by the campaigning around Pole-Pole in the early 80s. ZooCheck published a book at the time, called 'Beyond the Bars - The Zoo Dilemma', or similar, its worth tracking down on Amazon as it really gives you an idea of the turmoil created by the Pole-Pole situation/ZSL's treatment of their elephants (depending on how you see it). The book actually has sections under each press release in the timeline with an account as if written by the elephant herself.....sentimental as that may seem, I was a child in a tiny town many miles away, and I knew who Pole-Pole was as a result of this book being in my local library, so I wouldn't underestimate the publicity around this incident. Then came the study on Polar bears in the UK, and London got rid of its bears shortly after its publication.

As you'll have seen from the documentary, there were accusations of a bloated, old-school upper management, this was certainly in the days before marketing, promotions and PR, so no red river hogs kicking round Halloween pumpkins for the press or giraffes 'enjoying' ice lollies in the height of summer. I think they just missed the change in mood of the British public, and entered a recession having not appeared to have changed, at least externally, for a decade. There was the £10million one-off payment by the Thatcher government in the mid-eighties, that didn't result in any new enclosures despite the planned Arctic/Szechuan exhibits for the Mappins, there was talk of structural problems with the Mappins/Aquarium, and the Snowdon aviary, and the zoo had a ridiculous amount of animals, often rotating several species in the same outdoor exhibit (particularly with the hoofstock).

The 1980s saw no new exhibits or buildings, and when you consider the Mappin terraces were closed the zoo actually decreased in terms of exhibits. Chia-Chia left in 1988, leaving the zoo without giant pandas as they went into the threat of closure. Indeed the documentary suggests the attempt to establish a new pair of pandas in the early 90s was part of the drive to bring visitors back to the zoo. Finally, in 1990, the 'African Aviary' was built, with its rather (IMHO) extravagant use of piano wire, at a cost of £750,000, right before the crisis really hit. When you consider that 'Bear Mountain' only cost £160,000 less than ten years later, this doesn't look like a wise investment at the time to me.

London Zoo, to me, was not the lush green oasis you see today, at the time it seemed extremely barren and grey. The Cotton terraces were virtually all barren yards of compacted sand, there were few plants or soft furnishings in the Sobell Pavilion or the Cat Terraces. Nowadays the concrete is largely covered up by creepers and shrubs in most parts of the zoo, or slatted over with wood.

I would be interested in any corrections or additions anyone would like to make to the above.

 

[Dassie rat]

Back in the early 1980s, the government gave London Zoo £1 million a year. In the mid-1980s, the Conservative government decided to give a lump sum of £10 million and said the zoo would not receive any more taxpayers' money. A lot of the £10 million was spent on work behind the scenes e.g. wiring. The Zoo also paid £500,000 for Andy Grant to come up with development ideas. I went to one of the meetings, where Andy Grant said that the Stork and Ostrich House would be developed into a gorilla enclosure (£20 million) and the Mappins would become the Szechwan Experience (£30 million) with pandas etc. Grant showed a slide of a monkey, which resembled a Francois langur. He admitted that he didn't know what the monkey was. I would have thought that if you're trying to get millions of pounds off sponsors, he'd have found out before showing the slide. I wasn't impressed and Grant never explained where the money was coming from.

At about this time, the £10 million ran out and the Zoo went back to the government, but the government stood firm (I never did find out why it was so unwilling to pump money into the zoo, but spent a far bigger sum on the Royal Opera House, but politics can be confusing.

From 1990 to 1992, the Zoo tried to find ways to raise money. There was a staff canteen above the current gift shop and I read copies of letters from various zoos around the world. Why was the UK one of the few nations that didn't subsidise its national zoo? How could one of the world's most famous zoos come to an end? I went round the world in 1991 and found that zoos, such as Taronga, were keeping tabs on what was happening in London. The debate wasn't helped by misinformation. I remember the Daily Mirror wondering about what would happen to London Zoo's hippos. As the zoo didn't have any hippos, the question was irrelevant. It was decided to cut the number of species by a third, including losing one of the species of great apes. As I've stated before, this was one of the zoo's big mistakes. London got rid of the best breeding groups of orang-utans in the world and kept the gorillas, which had only had 4 young in the history of the zoo. The fifth baby gorilla was born last year, the first baby gorilla for 22 years, but only lived for a few months.

In early 1992, it was announced that the zoo was safe, as the Emir of Kuwait had donated £1 million in gratitude to the role of UK troops on liberating Kuwait from Iraq. I attended a party to celebrate 10 years of zoo volunteers. A member of the zoo council said that he was glad that the zoo was safe and looked forward to many more years of London Zoo. The following day, the same person announced that the zoo would have to close, as there was only just enough money to pay the redundancy money for staff. As far as I know, only one member of the council stood against the closure. You can read about John Edwards at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/emir-may-withdraw-pounds-1m-gift-to-london-zoo-1532861.html. Money that was raised to save the zoo was used to build a hyacinth macaw aviary on the site of the old birds of prey aviary. Years later, John Edwards wrote an article about the history of London Zoo and included details about the near closure. It shows the kind of man he is that he didn't mention his role in it.

I've tried to be as accurate as possible, although it does rely on memories about 20 years old and I hope I've filled in some of the gaps in Johnstoni's report.

 

[CGSwans]

At about this time, the £10 million ran out and the Zoo went back to the government, but the government stood firm (I never did find out why it was so unwilling to pump money into the zoo, but spent a far bigger sum on the Royal Opera House, but politics can be confusing.

That should explain things a little.

 

[IanRRobinson]

Back in the early 1980s, the government gave London Zoo £1 million a year. In the mid-1980s, the Conservative government decided to give a lump sum of £10 million and said the zoo would not receive any more taxpayers' money. A lot of the £10 million was spent on work behind the scenes e.g. wiring. The Zoo also paid £500,000 for Andy Grant to come up with development ideas. I went to one of the meetings, where Andy Grant said that the Stork and Ostrich House would be developed into a gorilla enclosure (£20 million) and the Mappins would become the Szechwan Experience (£30 million) with pandas etc. Grant showed a slide of a monkey, which resembled a Francois langur. He admitted that he didn't know what the monkey was. I would have thought that if you're trying to get millions of pounds off sponsors, he'd have found out before showing the slide. I wasn't impressed and Grant never explained where the money was coming from.

At about this time, the £10 million ran out and the Zoo went back to the government, but the government stood firm (I never did find out why it was so unwilling to pump money into the zoo, but spent a far bigger sum on the Royal Opera House, but politics can be confusing.

From 1990 to 1992, the Zoo tried to find ways to raise money. There was a staff canteen above the current gift shop and I read copies of letters from various zoos around the world. Why was the UK one of the few nations that didn't subsidise its national zoo? How could one of the world's most famous zoos come to an end? I went round the world in 1991 and found that zoos, such as Taronga, were keeping tabs on what was happening in London. The debate wasn't helped by misinformation. I remember the Daily Mirror wondering about what would happen to London Zoo's hippos. As the zoo didn't have any hippos, the question was irrelevant. It was decided to cut the number of species by a third, including losing one of the species of great apes. As I've stated before, this was one of the zoo's big mistakes. London got rid of the best breeding groups of orang-utans in the world and kept the gorillas, which had only had 4 young in the history of the zoo. The fifth baby gorilla was born last year, the first baby gorilla for 22 years, but only lived for a few months.

In early 1992, it was announced that the zoo was safe, as the Emir of Kuwait had donated £1 million in gratitude to the role of UK troops on liberating Kuwait from Iraq. I attended a party to celebrate 10 years of zoo volunteers. A member of the zoo council said that he was glad that the zoo was safe and looked forward to many more years of London Zoo. The following day, the same person announced that the zoo would have to close, as there was only just enough money to pay the redundancy money for staff. As far as I know, only one member of the council stood against the closure. You can read about John Edwards at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/emir-may-withdraw-pounds-1m-gift-to-london-zoo-1532861.html. Money that was raised to save the zoo was used to build a hyacinth macaw aviary on the site of the old birds of prey aviary. Years later, John Edwards wrote an article about the history of London Zoo and included details about the near closure. It shows the kind of man he is that he didn't mention his role in it.

I've tried to be as accurate as possible, although it does rely on memories about 20 years old and I hope I've filled in some of the gaps in Johnstoni's report.

Thanks for such a sober and factual piece, dassierat. John Edwards quite probably has more knowledge of ZSL history than any other living individual as well as a deep understanding of how rhe organisation works (or ought to ). His History of London Zoo in Old Photographs is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the Zoo's history. Be very aware that another published work on RP history, recently on sale in the zoo shop, was written by an individual who voted on Council for the Zoo's closure; the book in question does not mention this.

ZSL is a very odd organisation which arguably tries to do too much. It runs two zoos, 40 miles apart from each other, a Research Institute active in both the field and the laboratory, a veterinary hospital, pathology labs, a splendid library and a programme of symposia and scientific meetings. Against this backdrop, one could argue that it is very easy for the ruling Council to not give as much attention to the wellbeing of the Zoos as they merit.

I won't go on further, but I would point out this fact: London Zoo's annual attendance has still not got back to the level it had in 1990. A belief in the inevitability of its survival, especially in the present economic climate, is very unsafe IMHO.

 

[Steve Robinson]

. Money that was raised to save the zoo was used to build a hyacinth macaw aviary on the site of the old birds of prey aviary.

Is that the current set of Hyacinth Macaw aviaries with a much larger Red-tail Black Cockatoo aviary at the end?

If so, the ZSL could not have been in too much financial strife as they would not have cost much!

 

[DavidBrown]

I won't go on further, but I would point out this fact: London Zoo's annual attendance has still not got back to the level it had in 1990. A belief in the inevitability of its survival, especially in the present economic climate, is very unsafe IMHO.

What would you attribute this to Ian? Are there a lot of other things to do in London and life in general now (Internet, etc.) that people aren't going to the zoo like they used to? One thing that I remember was that the zoo's entry cost was VERY expensive relative to comprable zoos that I have visited...do you think that this has had a detrimental effect on attendance?

Has attendance stabilized with new exhibits like the gorillas and penguin, or is it still falling?

 

[Pertinax]

Is that the current set of Hyacinth Macaw aviaries with a much larger Red-tail Black Cockatoo aviary at the end?

Yes it is. The Hyacinth Macaws(one pair now) at ZSL now seem to occupy just one of the smaller aviaries and always seem badly plucked. There are also two pairs of Military Macaws, presumably the ones formerly in Whipsnade's Bird garden, divided between the big and smaller aviaries plus still a few Cockatoos sharing the bigger one.

 

[Pertinax]

Has attendance stabilized with new exhibits like the gorillas and penguin, or is it still falling?

Not addressed to me and I can't comment on figures. However I believe exhibits like Gorilla Kingdom and the new Penguin exhibit (which is indeed very good) are mainly incidental to visitor numbers, which are more dependent perhaps on other forces, such as economic or cultural issues. Gorilla Kingdom with the current small and non-breeding group of just four Gorillas is a pretty quiet exhibit at present and much better value in that area IMO is the very active Mangabey group just opposite.

 

[Dassie rat]

Gorilla Kingdom with the current small and non-breeding group of just four Gorillas is a pretty quiet exhibit at present and much better value in that area IMO is the very active Mangabey group just opposite.

I agree. There are only 54 white-crowned sooty mangabeys in zoos and only 63 sooty mangabeys, according to ISIS, so the species is still under-represented in captivity.

 

[Jurek7]

I think many posts on zoochat nailed it: small zoo, unremarkable exhibits, very few charismatic species, animals inactive, often elderly or non-breeding. In short, substandard.

On my visit, I had the intuitive feeling that ZSL is not really interested in London Zoo. Maybe they seem to consider it as a necessary evil, some addition to scientific activity. With attitude like this, it cannot work.

Just a question - how would you rate the London's most advertised new exhibit, Gorilla Kingdom, among zoo exhibits in England? Within top 25? Not really. So you have the answer.

 

[Pertinax]

I agree. There are only 54 white-crowned sooty mangabeys in zoos and only 63 sooty mangabeys, according to ISIS, so the species is still under-represented in captivity.

London had a nice breeding group of Sooty Mangabeys too- in the 'old days' of the Sobell Pavilions. Then they got rid of them... They sent them to Penscynor in Wales and where they went to after that is still an unsolved mystery on here.

Mangabeys are a very underrated Monkey group IMO and make excellent exhibits- the Red Capped Mangabeys at Colchester and Paignton are both colourful and active, and several times I've read comments on here about the London White-napes being 'interesting' to watch..

 

[Pertinax]

On my visit, I had the intuitive feeling that ZSL is not really interested in London Zoo. Maybe they seem to consider it as a necessary evil, some addition to scientific activity.

Just a question - how would you rate the London's most advertised new exhibit, Gorilla Kingdom, among zoo exhibits in England? Within top 25? Not really. So you have the answer.

It certainly had that feeling several decades ago- the animal collection seemed the Society's least concern/priority, maybe this is still true?

Gorilla Kingdom- the exhibit is fine, they just need 8-10 Gorillas including a few young ones, using it.

 

[IanRRobinson]

Is that the current set of Hyacinth Macaw aviaries with a much larger Red-tail Black Cockatoo aviary at the end?

If so, the ZSL could not have been in too much financial strife as they would not have cost much!

Steve, this was an available and non-essential surplus after the crisis. It was built a) to fill an area of the Zoo that was lying fallow and b) as a form of expressing the Zoo's gratitude to its supporters.

It was rather like someone paying off your credit card bill and you buy them lunch. You wouldn't use all the money to send them off on a cruise, if you get my drift!

 

[TARZAN]

I think ZooCheck and the advancement of the animal rights movement had a part to play, though I speak subjectively. I feel personally that London zoo was harmed by the campaigning around Pole-Pole in the early 80s. ZooCheck published a book at the time, called 'Beyond the Bars - The Zoo Dilemma', or similar, its worth tracking down on Amazon as it really gives you an idea of the turmoil created by the Pole-Pole situation/ZSL's treatment of their elephants (depending on how you see it). The book actually has sections under each press release in the timeline with an account as if written by the elephant herself.....sentimental as that may seem, I was a child in a tiny town many miles away, and I knew who Pole-Pole was as a result of this book being in my local library, so I wouldn't underestimate the publicity around this incident. Then came the study on Polar bears in the UK, and London got rid of its bears shortly after its publication.

As you'll have seen from the documentary, there were accusations of a bloated, old-school upper management, this was certainly in the days before marketing, promotions and PR, so no red river hogs kicking round Halloween pumpkins for the press or giraffes 'enjoying' ice lollies in the height of summer. I think they just missed the change in mood of the British public, and entered a recession having not appeared to have changed, at least externally, for a decade. There was the £10million one-off payment by the Thatcher government in the mid-eighties, that didn't result in any new enclosures despite the planned Arctic/Szechuan exhibits for the Mappins, there was talk of structural problems with the Mappins/Aquarium, and the Snowdon aviary, and the zoo had a ridiculous amount of animals, often rotating several species in the same outdoor exhibit (particularly with the hoofstock).

The 1980s saw no new exhibits or buildings, and when you consider the Mappin terraces were closed the zoo actually decreased in terms of exhibits. Chia-Chia left in 1988, leaving the zoo without giant pandas as they went into the threat of closure. Indeed the documentary suggests the attempt to establish a new pair of pandas in the early 90s was part of the drive to bring visitors back to the zoo. Finally, in 1990, the 'African Aviary' was built, with its rather (IMHO) extravagant use of piano wire, at a cost of £750,000, right before the crisis really hit. When you consider that 'Bear Mountain' only cost £160,000 less than ten years later, this doesn't look like a wise investment at the time to me.

London Zoo, to me, was not the lush green oasis you see today, at the time it seemed extremely barren and grey. The Cotton terraces were virtually all barren yards of compacted sand, there were few plants or soft furnishings in the Sobell Pavilion or the Cat Terraces. Nowadays the concrete is largely covered up by creepers and shrubs in most parts of the zoo, or slatted over with wood.

I would be interested in any corrections or additions anyone would like to make to the above.

Beyond The Bars, I remember buying this book when it was first published, my thoughts then were that it was an uninteresting book apart from the opening chapter by Virginia McKenna and the final chapter by her late husband Bill Travers. The final chapter concerning Pole Pole, the young African elephant I remember feeling sad and depressed after reading this as I could remember when this elephant first came to the zoo as a replacement for Dixie, The Pole Pole affair gave Virginia McKenna and Bill Travers the impetus then to start Zoo Check, later to grow into the Born Free Foundation. Without doubt I would say that this was the the start of London Zoo's trouble in the eighties, remember they had no new buildings or new attractions then to interest the visitors, they could however rely on the government cash every year, the iron lady soon put a stop to that, a final one off payment and that's your lot, get on with it and find your way in the free market place was her attitude, Remembering the time when the zoo was faced with closure, donations came in ranging from one million pounds to children sending their pocket money, surely an indication of what people thought of the zoo, I cannot recall, however, any other zoo in the U.K. offering London any assistance at this time, financial or otherwise, apart from Flamingo Land, North Yorkshire, offering to take animals in if the zoo closed. Beyond The Bars, it must be nearly thirty years ago that I read this book, I dug it out last night and read it for a second time, my opinion of this book was exactly the same as last reading it all those years ago, mainly boring and unintersting, and a struggle to read, apart from the first and last chapters, as I still found reading about Pole Pole both sad and depressing, I would like to think that we have moved on since those days and incidents like this never happen again.

 

[reduakari]

What would you attribute this to Ian? Are there a lot of other things to do in London and life in general now (Internet, etc.) that people aren't going to the zoo like they used to? One thing that I remember was that the zoo's entry cost was VERY expensive relative to comprable zoos that I have visited...do you think that this has had a detrimental effect on attendance?

Has attendance stabilized with new exhibits like the gorillas and penguin, or is it still falling?

In general--worldwide--zoo attendance is falling or staying flat relative to population. Obviously there are exceptions (Leipzig, Zurich, Columbus among others), but this tends to happen only where there have been massive re-investments and revitalizations. Clearly, the competition for people's leisure time today is far more intense than it was 20 or 30 years ago. And as government subsidies of zoos decline, the "real cost" of operating is being passed to the visitors, which no doubt has dampened attendance numbers in many cases.

I believe London's numbers have stabilized and even modestly increased due to recent developments, but they don't even begin to approach the levels seen in the 1960s and before.

 

[Pertinax]

I believe London's numbers have stabilized and even modestly increased due to recent developments, but they don't even begin to approach the levels seen in the 1960s and before.

In the context of the former visitor numbers to London Zoo, its probably also worth remembering that prior to the I960's in the UK there were no Safari Parks, few Wildlife Parks and the only main established Zoological collections apart from London/Whipsnade were well spaced out around the country; Bristol, Chester, Paignton, Dudley, Edinburgh, Dublin and a very few others. So there was far less choice available if people wanted to go and see animals, compared to today when virtually every English county has at least one animal collection, often several. Plus wildlife T.V programmes were still in their relative infancy too.

 

[IanRRobinson]

In the context of the former visitor numbers to London Zoo, its probably also worth remembering that prior to the I960's in the UK there were no Safari Parks, few Wildlife Parks and the only main established Zoological collections apart from London/Whipsnade were well spaced out around the country; Bristol, Chester, Paignton, Dudley, Edinburgh, Dublin and a very few others. So there was far less choice available if people wanted to go and see animals, compared to today when virtually every English county has at least one animal collection, often several. Plus wildlife T.V programmes were still in their relative infancy too.

London's attendance has flatlined at around a million visitors a year. The size and scope of the collection, and the number of keepers, was cut by a third in 1991/2; admission prices did not reduce, however.

It is a matter of opinion whether or not RP is now value for money. For an adult to pay up to £20.50 is one thing; for a child over three to pay £16.40 is probably another. For the oft-touted nuclear family of 4, that's a total outlay of over £70 before any food, ice-creams, guide-books or souvenirs are bought.

The actual process of getting to the Zoo is not getting easier, either. The tube is often closed for refurbishment works at the weekend and the congestion charge is another deterrent, however environmentally laudable it may be.

And rival animal attractions in the South-East do pose a challenge for London that it has never had to face until 40 or so years ago. If you live in Kent, you would be more likely to gravitate to Howletts now, where you will see 60+ gorillas, a dozen or so African elephants, black rhino, tigers, leopards, snow leopards and a plethora of primates. If you live in Essex, Colchester now offers African elephants, white rhino, chimps and orangs (admittedly indifferently displayed IMO), lions, tigers, leopards, sun bears, sealions, penguins and a great deal of razzamatazz.

Frankly, my kids of 10 and 9 evince more enjoyment at either site than RP.

 

[Shorts]

The actual process of getting to the Zoo is not getting easier, either. The tube is often closed for refurbishment works at the weekend and the congestion charge is another deterrent, however environmentally laudable it may be.

In the interests of accuracy I must point out that the zoo (and I believe the whole of Regent's Park) is outside the Congestion Charge Zone. In any case there's no congestion charge on weekends when most families probably visit.

If you're near the M1 and driving there it's a very straightforward trip.

 

[Shorts]

Frankly, my kids of 10 and 9 evince more enjoyment at either site than RP.

If they ever get seriously into non-mammals I'm sure RP will become more of an attraction to them.

Whilst I accept the place has a few shortcomings (the biggest being the Cat Terraces which they're planning to deal with) let's not forget it has the best reptile house/collection in the UK, the best aquarium in a zoo in the UK and great bird and invert exhibits and collections. It's no slouch on interesting smaller mammals either.