Marwell Wildlife Marwell Zoo News 2014
- Thread starter mhale
- Start date
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
The issue of blame is a very interesting one. I am sure that many of those associated with the zoo would consider the job they are doing to be excellent; the concept of anyone being to blame would, therefore, be contradictory.
Certainly, the easiest direction in which to point the finger is towards Mr James Crettney (interestingly, the spell checker on my iPad tries to change that name to 'cretinous'), the director.
But he, presumably, is only doing what he is told to do by the board of trustees. Or, in theory that should be the case. But who are the trustees? I've spent ten minutes googling around, and not found a list of names. I may be wrong, but I would have thought that a charitable organisation was duty-bound to include such a list on their website. I did find this advert, seeking new trustees - Trustees required (with marketing or general commercial background) Job with Charisma Recruitment Ltd | 365942 - worth reading for the excellent management-speak it contains (no real mention of an interest in wildlife being necessary, sadly).
If the trustees were unhappy with the director, they'd get rid of him. However, my experience in schools, which have similar management structures, is that strong groups of trustees are rare, and a powerful leader can control that group, even if it is, in theory, supposed to be controlling him or her.
This one wil run and run....
I believe that was the case with the Wildebeest. Correct?
The trustees are listed on the Charity Commission site , as are copies of Annual Accounts ( Charity number 275433).
Currently listed trustees are -
Mr Merrick Denton-Thomas
Mr Barry Watson
Mr Philip Conway
Mr Simon Trent Beloe ( chairman during 2012 )
Prof. Guy Guppy
Dr Miranda Stevenson
Mr Patrick Mitchell
Dr Mark Stanley Price
Mr Christopher Langford
Mrs Nicola Robinson
Mrs Teresa Frost
Ms Karelyn Amanda Warnford-Davis
Dr Stevenson took over as Park Director from John Knowles and was in charge for a couple of years .
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
John Knowles served on ZSL Council for a good number of years. Opinions are divided about his service in that capacity (he voted for London Zoo's closure!), but presumably he was able to see at first hand the problems that can arise from a zoo where a director and a committee (once defined by John le Carre as being "an animal with four back legs") are batting proposals back and forwards.
It seems a grim irony that he left Marwell in the hands of an organisational set up analogous to ZSL...
It seems a grim irony that he left Marwell in the hands of an organisational set up analogous to ZSL...
It's vaguely possible, certainly, but I sincerely doubt there is an ongoing master plan going back several years to ensure this state of affairs comes to pass, as Gary theorises above and has said on several occasions previously over the years
Obviously I would like to see it continue and hopefully, refind itself a bit with some additions rather than more subtractions. It was just a random thought really...But can't Trusts be wound up? Does it have to go on being a Zoo/Park for ever?
Last edited:
Interesting thread so far, some people losing all perspective but interesting none the less.
As for this ongoing thing people have about Meerkats... people are really going overboard with this notion that they are all over the place, honestly, there is one group of Meerkats visible to visitors at the moment. I know they have others that occasionally fill empty enclosures as a temporary measure- which is surely better than just leaving it empty. But even when that smaller empty enclosure behind Marwell Hall has Meerkats back in it then 2 Meerkat groups in a zoo the size of Marwell is not all that uncommon, and I personally don't think that's excessive at all.
If the comment was aimed at me, i don't think i have lost any perspective! I see a mammal collection which is collapsing, whilst nothing is added. The missing mammals list has already been added to this year and several more are due to follow.
I have genuine concerns over why the zoo seems to have gone downhill, almost on every visit i have made over the last 5 years.
Certainly not solely aimed at you... and don't get me wrong I agree that Marwell needs to revitalise the collection and bring in new species, but I think they will, and the perspective is this- many people in past threads have referred to the fact that other collections have gone through similar processes and come out stronger, including the great & powerful Chester. It is well documented that Marwell have in recent years gone through a change of management, a re-branding, a restructuring and a new collection plan, and realistically, how long does everyone think it should take for anyone to be able to measure whether or not the decisions have been successful? I still think more patience is required.
From the plans I have heard about coming up it sounds like actually they are starting to invest far superior sums into the upcoming projects and we need to wait and see whether the quality of those finished products are worthy of the money spent and the time waiting for them. OK everyone can think of examples of disappointing projects (Gibbon & Coati), but there are also good ones (Cheetah & new bird aviary), and hopefully as the next big project is for large paddock animals this is one that will be done well and in line with the original heart of Marwell which people are so concerned about diminishing.
When you look back at the species that have left the collection, how many of them were thriving, healthy breeding animals that were well exhibited and contributed to the conservation aims, honestly...? So would people disagree with the concept that for the place to truly improve and bring the place into a new more contemporary era that it would be realistic to do that with a jam packed collection, and that also it would be right to start investing in new ventures whilst some species are kept in substandard exhibits? If you were to take over a collection which had animals in poor out of date exhibits, and non breeding animals taking up room which could be developed for breeding groups/ pairs or a rarer or more viable species for conservation efforts, then would your planned order be to thin out those species which don't tick the boxes, make good the areas that are substandard, and then look to what new projects and new species to bring in?? If you think about it that is what is happening and that is the order I would do it too.
Lastly everyone is assuming that nothing new is ever going to be brought in again because we haven't heard about it- but how do we know that there aren't collection plan discussions well under way with exciting and appropriate new species already identified, but just waiting until those other important stages have happened first, and do we really expect the zoo to start announcing what those species will be and when they will happen...? What would be the point of saying that until they are ready to start making it happen?
Sorry, but i find it hard to share your optimism!
I find it hard to agree with many of your comments either. Many of the animals moved out were not in sub-
Standard exhibits and Marwell has plenty of space to develop new exhibits without culling its collection to the degree it has. I would hate to see a zoo with a handful of super-exhibits & very little else.
I go to see the animals firstly, not admire the architecture. The cheetah exhibit is essentially the same enclosures with a fancy wooden viewing platform and re-built similar sized house.
We have been waiting for so called plans for the the last 5 YEARS,things like gorillas were mentioned but died a death,in the new hippo wetlands area no news species are mentioned,maybe the new tropical house which should be built next after the rhinos may surprise me.but being cynical ......
Communityzoo
Well-Known Member
Reading this discussion, and looking at the plans for the new rhino development, a few things are clear to me.
The 'game farm' of the 70s and 80s is gone, and isn't coming back. With the advent of post-Chipperfield UK safari parks being fully integrated into EEP and ESB species management, these spaces can nowadays manage and breed species that, 25 years ago, would only have been held by ZSL or Marwell. From what footage I've seen, the African hoofstock building at Woburn is on a par with or superior to all of Marwell's ungulate facilities. There almost isn't a need for a specialist UK holding of non-temperate ungulates/carnivores in the way there was previously when less collections took conservation seriously.
The new rhino development, a glossy, 'high-finish' building with landscaped hardstand areas, appears to be as much a visitor centre with a focus on three species historically associated with Marwell as it is an animal exhibit, and therefore I would say it is also a sign of Marwell sort of becoming an exhibition of its own legacy, a charity showcasing its work through a smaller, consolidated living collection across its grounds.
I think some of the developments in the last few years have been overly styled, or misjudged, but the news that they are embarking on a major upgrade for three of the most important species at the park is to me very welcome, and worth the loss of a group of kudu, especially if those individuals were to end up in better accommodation at somewhere like Port Lympne or Knowsley. Similarly, I will also be happy to see any upgrade to the pygmy hippo housing, given Marwell has one of the best outdoor facilities for this species and the breeding record to match it.
The 'game farm' of the 70s and 80s is gone, and isn't coming back. With the advent of post-Chipperfield UK safari parks being fully integrated into EEP and ESB species management, these spaces can nowadays manage and breed species that, 25 years ago, would only have been held by ZSL or Marwell. From what footage I've seen, the African hoofstock building at Woburn is on a par with or superior to all of Marwell's ungulate facilities. There almost isn't a need for a specialist UK holding of non-temperate ungulates/carnivores in the way there was previously when less collections took conservation seriously.
The new rhino development, a glossy, 'high-finish' building with landscaped hardstand areas, appears to be as much a visitor centre with a focus on three species historically associated with Marwell as it is an animal exhibit, and therefore I would say it is also a sign of Marwell sort of becoming an exhibition of its own legacy, a charity showcasing its work through a smaller, consolidated living collection across its grounds.
I think some of the developments in the last few years have been overly styled, or misjudged, but the news that they are embarking on a major upgrade for three of the most important species at the park is to me very welcome, and worth the loss of a group of kudu, especially if those individuals were to end up in better accommodation at somewhere like Port Lympne or Knowsley. Similarly, I will also be happy to see any upgrade to the pygmy hippo housing, given Marwell has one of the best outdoor facilities for this species and the breeding record to match it.
You obviously like the idea of a few 'glossy' exhibits at the cost of a third of the collection, which is exactly what i have been criticising for the last 5 years. It all seems to be about image to me and has nothing to do with animal wefare. The management can all pat themselves on the back & say what a good job they are doing, because new exhibits for existing species will bring advertising oppurtunities. The public will keep coming, because many have no viable alternative. It is only a handful of people like me who will rip up their 'annual pass' (you're not a member at Marwell!) at the end of the year.
Much as I dislike some of Aspinall junior's comments, the parks have the right idea in some respects when it comes to exhibits. They don't do 'glossy', but the parks are both filled with plenty of rare animals that can't be seen in many other zoos.
The problem with Marwell goes far beyond the loss of a few kudu!
Last edited:
Communityzoo
Well-Known Member
I actually loved the Marwell of old, I feel similarly about Port Lympne, I'm just acknowledging change. I don't really like glossy, floor-to-ceiling window type exhibits either, but we now live in an era of breeding programmes coordinated from other locations, different licensing requirements, legislation ranging from disability rights to health and safety, different costs (wages for example), all which require a different approach to design, and to generating gate revenue. I don't believe the designs for the new development forfeit animal welfare, they just incorporate a visitor experience which I imagine will aid in fundraising or bringing people in through the gate, rather than an off-exhibit house which may cost almost as much and won't necessarily pay for itself. I'm not saying its good that it comes down to that, but it clearly does.
Just to reinforce my argument on 'glossy' exhibits not being necessary to make a zoo good.
I visited Cotswold Wildlife park a few weeks ago for the first time, a favourite of many on here, but apart from the lemur walkthrough, nothing struck me as being particularly fancy, in fact many of the enclosures were pretty basic! The giraffe enclosure wasn't flash, but perfectly acceptable. I don't want this to give the wrong impression, i liked CWP , a lot, but i think all those animals crammed into a small area around the walled garden, actually give the impression of a far bigger collection than it actually is! Something i have no objection to.
What i find odd, is that some of those who think basic enclosures are fine at CWP, think it is justifiable for Marwell to cull its mammal collection to make way for a few expensive 'super exhibits' !?
I visited Cotswold Wildlife park a few weeks ago for the first time, a favourite of many on here, but apart from the lemur walkthrough, nothing struck me as being particularly fancy, in fact many of the enclosures were pretty basic! The giraffe enclosure wasn't flash, but perfectly acceptable. I don't want this to give the wrong impression, i liked CWP , a lot, but i think all those animals crammed into a small area around the walled garden, actually give the impression of a far bigger collection than it actually is! Something i have no objection to.
What i find odd, is that some of those who think basic enclosures are fine at CWP, think it is justifiable for Marwell to cull its mammal collection to make way for a few expensive 'super exhibits' !?
Press release about the Wild Explorers development:
Marwell Zoo set for £2.8m revamp to house larger animals (From Hampshire Chronicle)
Marwell Zoo set for £2.8m revamp to house larger animals (From Hampshire Chronicle)
Typical Marwell publicity material-several half truths & exaggerations!
5 times bigger than the largest exhibit at Marwell currently?! Does the 'wonderful' African Valley not count as an exhibit, now they've moved on to something new?! If it's 5 times bigger than that they'll need to move out another 30 mammal species to make way for all those wooden platforms!