ZSL London Zoo London Zoo discussion thread

pipaluk said:
Anything else? * indicates hardly worth counting realistically!
Click to expand...

I mean, there is no world in which they don't count for this. I could see leaving out domestics (do they still have ferrets?) but actual wild carnivores don't have to be rare to count..!

Though the list of primate species above leaves off Ring-tailed Lemur as well, so maybe there's some secret species blacklist I wasn't aware of! :D
 
pipaluk said:
Carnivores

Tiger
Lion
African Wild Dog
Meerkat *
ASCO *
Narrow striped mongoose
Dwarf mongoose
Ring tailed coati *

Anything else? * indicates hardly worth counting realistically!
Click to expand...

No, but then again Colchester, a place I know we both think highly of, has very few birds and not a single rodent species. I originally made the point to remark on something interesting, but of course there will be variability in focus between collections; that's part of the fun for me at least.
 
Maguari said:
I mean, there is no world in which they don't count for this. I could see leaving out domestics (do they still have ferrets?) but actual wild carnivores don't have to be rare to count..!

Though the list of primate species above leaves off Ring-tailed Lemur as well, so maybe there's some secret species blacklist I wasn't aware of! :D
Click to expand...
Ok but even if those 8 count, I doubt London will come anywhere other than between 25-35! Even Shepreth beats London, Jimmy's farm soon!!
 
pipaluk said:
Ok but even if those 8 count, I doubt London will come anywhere other than between 25-35! Even Shepreth beats London, Jimmy's farm soon!!
Click to expand...

Oh, it's low for the size of zoo, don't get me wrong. I just don't think we can write off three perfectly reasonable species..!
 
pipaluk said:
Ok but even if those 8 count, I doubt London will come anywhere other than between 25-35! Even Shepreth beats London, Jimmy's farm soon!!
Click to expand...
Ok without even trying

Colchester
Chester
Edinburgh
Dudley
Marwell
Exmoor
Hamerton
YWP
Shepreth
Thriby
Cotswold
Axe Valley
Dartmoor
Whipsnade
Wingham
Fenn bell zoo
Hensley
Howletts
Port Lympne.
Banham
Africa Alive
Paradise Wildlife park

Plus others to follow soon
 
Last edited:
pipaluk said:
Ok, primates London is probably in the top 5.
But carnivores it may struggle to make the top 30 let alone 10!
Ungulates it won't make the top 10 either!
Click to expand...
With all due respect, this is exactly what I meant upthread by being needlessly harsh on London because it can't live up to its former greatness. Except maybe Chester, every major British zoo has one taxonomic group in which it is lacking behind others. London is no exception, and as far as I am concerned, that is forgivable.

And although London's ungulate and carnivore collections are small, it includes a few rare species (Narrow-striped Boky, Natal Red Duiker, Babirusa), with many animals displayed in excellent exhibits - very few city zoos have lion and tiger enclosures that can each genuinely claim to being the best in their respective nation. Its all down to personal taste, and I can understand that, if the breadth of the collection is what interests you, London may seem mediocre. But once you take into account other factors, I don't think it is too bad.

Not to mention that zoos aren't only supposed to show mammals. London is probably the best zoo in the country for ectotherms even with the Reptile House partially closed and the Aquarium long gone (a title which it will further reinstate with the opening of a new House soon), and is comfortably top five in the country for birds.

Apologies for forgetting about the Ring-tailed Lemurs!
 
I promised myself I wouldn’t comment because frankly I’ve been scared because I know some members have something against my views and opinions. I just want to say this, because a zoo is not what you ‘want It to be’ that is not reason to constantly slag it off. The behaviour of some members on here is absolutely awful. I know I’ll get the usual ‘you are biased’ comments but seriously stop this ridiculous unnecessary harsh critique of s zoo that doesn’t meet your abc standards. Please just can we all be positive. If you have nothing nice or constructive don’t say it.

I apologise for getting involved, I know some would prefer if I kept my mouth shut
 
ajmcwhipsnade said:
I promised myself I wouldn’t comment because frankly I’ve been scared because I know some members have something against my views and opinions. I just want to say this, because a zoo is not what you ‘want It to be’ that is not reason to constantly slag it off. The behaviour of some members on here is absolutely awful. I know I’ll get the usual ‘you are biased’ comments but seriously stop this ridiculous unnecessary harsh critique of s zoo that doesn’t meet your abc standards. Please just can we all be positive. If you have nothing nice or constructive don’t say it.

I apologise for getting involved, I know some would prefer if I kept my mouth shut
Click to expand...
Your views are valid even if some of us don't agree with them !
 
What good does it do to even 'rank' collections against each other? By suggesting smaller collections such as Shepreth for example, its suggesting that to be considered less then Shepreth is a bad thing. A very different collection, much smaller location and to compare is frankly unfair on both collections. Its an insult to suggest 'oh good old Shepreth, well done for being better'. Not fair on them whatsoever, and yes I have visited it.

If you dont like London Zoo (which i cant understand) then dont go? Simple as that. Allow others to enjoy it without suggesting/implying that they are foolish for enjoying a zoo that does not meet your own standards.

Again, as this is the news thread, I dont think this is the right place for such a discussion.
 
Last edited:
ajmcwhipsnade said:
What good does it do to even 'rank' collections against each other? By suggesting smaller collections such as Shepreth for example, its suggesting that to be considered less then Shepreth is a bad thing. A very different collection, much smaller location and to compare is frankly unfair on both collections. Its an insult to suggest 'oh good old Shepreth, well done for being better'. Not fair on them whatsoever, and yes I have visited it.

If you dont like London Zoo (which i cant understand) then dont go? Simple as that. Allow others to enjoy it without suggesting/implying that they are foolish for enjoying a zoo that does not meet your own standards.

Again, as this is the news thread, I dont think this is the right place for such a discussion.
Click to expand...
Don't know what the reason for your tantrum is?!
 
I, myself like London Zoo. I like that it has variety, and I think this is what Zoos should have. Whilst some focus on certain types of animals, London has a good number of animals, the exhibits on the whole are okay, it's stacked in history and whilst it may not have the number of larger animals it used to, it still has a huge variety. I get if a zoo wants to be a certain attraction, focusing on one type of animal or geographical location and I do like some of these zoos, but I find London hard to put down.
No it's not going to have 20 species of carnivores, but it has variety. If you want to visit large number of carnivores, you to to Exmoor, Axe or Chester, perhaps even Hoo Zoo, but London has a high number of animals that many zoos lack showing.
Personally, I find it sad the number of zoos that fail to show many birds or reptiles, but that is something London does expertly well at.

Given Shrepreth was mentioned, I wouldn't have been screaming this as carnivore top heavy? (Red Panda, Clouded Leopard, Tiger, Maned Wolf, Pardine Genet, Scottish Wildcat, Meerkats and Asian Small Clawed Otter) I make it 8 species, unless I'm missing something, yet London houses just as many, so I don't get that comparison.

Just because people like certain animals, such as carnivores, doesn't mean it will be the sole attraction for everyone. I am a big fan of rodentia and in particular Squirrels. Very few zoos house anything bar Red Squirrel, Marmots, Prevost, American Red or Tamiops, yet this is an animal which has 289 different types across 58 genera, so why are they so under represented in our zoos. I appreciate my interest in more than most, but I would never critique a certain zoo for having only one or two species of squirrel.

Just because one person likes a type of animal, doesn't mean all zoos should be top heavy with that type of animal, but London has large variety, something many zoos don't, which for me is more of a disappointment than them not being carnivore top heavy.
 
pipaluk said:
Ok, primates London is probably in the top 5.
But carnivores it may struggle to make the top 30 let alone 10!
Ungulates it won't make the top 10 either!
Click to expand...
London has a brilliant variety of species given its limitations. Do you want it to become like the ‘good old days’ where there was a new species in every cage - so many animals that none of them were in remotely suitable enclosures?

Seriously, what’s your problem? You hear a strong point of London (the primates) and you just try come up with a new reason to complain. Zoos differ. No one’s ever gone to Exmoor and complained about the lack of ungulates!
 
The bashing of London Zoo seems to be a favourite pastime on here, but it seems to me that people seem to have an unfair expectation based on what London Zoo once was. With the Casson and the Mappins the zoo does have 2 headache concrete construction and one can argue whether it is smart to put so much effort in Sumatran tiger and Asiatic lion enclosures for a zoo of its size. But glasses tend to be half full too when they are half empty. Even with the small size and challenges with historic structures the London zoo still has one of the largest and most diverse animal collections of the country.

If you zoom out from just comparing the London Zoo to other UK zoos you get a more nuanced picture. One could compare it to Dublin Zoo, which is 2x the size and has most of the megafauna but overall less species (73) then the London Zoo has bird species....

It makes more sense to compare London with other city zoos that have serious space constraints and loads of historical baggage that make developments more challenging then in the midst of Yorkshire. When doing a quick Zootierliste search it becomes clear that from a selection of historic European city zoos in the 11-15 hectare size bracket London Zoo has a very representative collection that isn't small at all and well balanced.

Zoo.................Size (ha) ..Mammals....Birds.......Reptiles......Amphibians.......Sum
London...........14............. 51...............85...........26..............17.......................179
Amsterdam.....14.............54................79...........35..............9.........................177
Antwerp..........11..............46...............122.........72..............21.......................261
Paris...............14.............55................61...........31..............17.......................164
Basel..............11.............46.................74..........33..............12........................165
Dresden.........13.............58.................81..........25...............6.........................170
Copenhagen..11..............62................73...........30..............13.......................178

Though it is true that most of these zoos keep more megafauna (all bar Paris have elephants), that doesn't mean they are in perfect enclosures and in multiple of these zoos one can have serious question marks about the enclosure size of their large mammals. Antwerp's elephants and a number of Copenhagen exhibits are a good example of that.

Of all these 7 city zoos it can be argued that only Zoo Basel and Zoo Antwerp play in the champions league of European zoos when it comes to how well they are rated by Zoochatters and that the others, including London, are mostly Europa League zoos. Given the limitations these zoos face that is not bad. Tiergarten Schönnbrun does show what is possible on a small historic layout, but they have now had 30 years of firm government support (and the funding to go with that) and is literally the backyard of the city's most popular tourist attraction (the Schönbrunn palace attracts up to 4 million visitors per year!). So that comparison is unfair to basically any zoo.
 
lintworm said:
The bashing of London Zoo seems to be a favourite pastime on here, but it seems to me that people seem to have an unfair expectation based on what London Zoo once was. With the Casson and the Mappins the zoo does have 2 headache concrete construction and one can argue whether it is smart to put so much effort in Sumatran tiger and Asiatic lion enclosures for a zoo of its size. But glasses tend to be half full too when they are half empty. Even with the small size and challenges with historic structures the London zoo still has one of the largest and most diverse animal collections of the country.

If you zoom out from just comparing the London Zoo to other UK zoos you get a more nuanced picture. One could compare it to Dublin Zoo, which is 2x the size and has most of the megafauna but overall less species (73) then the London Zoo has bird species....

It makes more sense to compare London with other city zoos that have serious space constraints and loads of historical baggage that make developments more challenging then in the midst of Yorkshire. When doing a quick Zootierliste search it becomes clear that from a selection of historic European city zoos in the 11-15 hectare size bracket London Zoo has a very representative collection that isn't small at all and well balanced.

Zoo.................Size (ha) ..Mammals....Birds.......Reptiles......Amphibians.......Sum
London...........14............. 51...............85...........26..............17.......................179
Amsterdam.....14.............54................79...........35..............9.........................177
Antwerp..........11..............46...............122.........72..............21.......................261
Paris...............14.............55................61...........31..............17.......................164
Basel..............11.............46.................74..........33..............12........................165
Dresden.........13.............58.................81..........25...............6.........................170
Copenhagen..11..............62................73...........30..............13.......................178

Though it is true that most of these zoos keep more megafauna (all bar Paris have elephants), that doesn't mean they are in perfect enclosures and in multiple of these zoos one can have serious question marks about the enclosure size of their large mammals. Antwerp's elephants and a number of Copenhagen exhibits are a good example of that.

Of all these 7 city zoos it can be argued that only Zoo Basel and Zoo Antwerp play in the champions league of European zoos when it comes to how well they are rated by Zoochatters and that the others, including London, are mostly Europa League zoos. Given the limitations these zoos face that is not bad. Tiergarten Schönnbrun does show what is possible on a small historic layout, but they have now had 30 years of firm government support (and the funding to go with that) and is literally the backyard of the city's most popular tourist attraction (the Schönbrunn palace attracts up to 4 million visitors per year!). So that comparison is unfair to basically any zoo.
Click to expand...

I love London and have often come to its defence on here. It's good to see the above stats.

As with any zoo, London has its problems, but as @lintworm says, a lot of the criticism that it gets on here seems to be related to comparing it to an idealised version of itself c. 1975. I would also point out that the new Director General seems to have a genuine passion for the zoos, as well as the conservation and scientific work of the Society. I am feeling positive about the future for both the ZSL zoos.
 
Kalaw said:
True, although given how rarely they move, how slow they are on the few occasions that they do so, and how much of a crowd seems to gather around them every single time, the sakis are still far more entertaining in my opinion.

This discussion about Rainforest Life has made me realise that, with the sakis, London now has four primate walkthroughs, with 7 species between them. In terms of walkthrough primate spaces, does any British zoo have as much on offer?
Click to expand...
the sloths are quite often on the move around 5pm - 6pm I find, one at least has been on the move (relatively fast!) on all my recent three visits - you are right about the crowds around them
 
Last edited:
oflory said:
I love London and have often come to its defence on here. It's good to see the above stats.

As with any zoo, London has its problems, but as @lintworm says, a lot of the criticism that it gets on here seems to be related to comparing it to an idealised version of itself c. 1975. I would also point out that the new Director General seems to have a genuine passion for the zoos, as well as the conservation and scientific work of the Society. I am feeling positive about the future for both the ZSL zoos.
Click to expand...
Like you I love London and Whipsnade, I just really hope you are right about the new Director General.
I don't criticise London Zoo due to a dislike of the place, I am just frustrated by the feeling that it could and should be much better than it currently is.
 
pipaluk said:
I am just frustrated by the feeling that it could and should be much better than it currently is.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, and don't have a problem with that - every zoo could and should be better in certain ways. But your version of better seems to be more of the big, crowd-pleasing mammals, which is fine. Of course everyone is entitled to their own tastes and criteria when it comes to zoos, but to insist that London not being able meet them, regardless of the constraints that come with size, age and location, makes it a substandard zoo is a little harsh, to say the least.

My dream is that, one day, London will be allowed to expand, receive better government funding and philanthropic support, allowing it to rebuild until it is comparable with Antwerp or Zurich. But until that happens, I think the best that the zoo can do is focus on fantastic exhibits for a good collection of smaller, rarer animals. Which, with a new Reptile House right around the corner, wonderful Invertebrate, Bird and Small Mammal Houses already existing, and several exciting new species or improved enclosures having opened across the past two years or so, I think it is doing a perfectly good job at
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top