Marwell Wildlife Marwell Zoo news 2025

NMM said:
I had a look to see what people were saying on social media. The main criticism was people preferring the money be spent new/improved exhibits instead. Several people were asking if it will still be possible to go round the zoo anti-clockwise to avoid the crowds (I do this).

Marwell have responded to them. They confirmed it will still be possible to go round anti-clockwise. More interestingly they said that "another animal habitat development" (their words) is planned for later in 2025.

When people are commenting about zoos, I find it funny when they refer to species the zoo has never held. One of those saying it would be better spent on new animals was complaining that they never replaced the gorillas when they left.
Click to expand...
Presumably the last bit refers to the Sulawesi macaques. A slight size difference....
 
One thing I find rather pivotal is how the two offices have responded to the now rather aged issue of 'not enough animals'.
With Cretney this was a sort of taboo. Though for what it's worth, I think this was a way of deflecting one particular thing - for the first years of his time in office, Cretney's developments were characterised by those which were flashy and relatively quickly done. The Central Africa exhibit in 2006, the Golden Lion Tamarin walkthrough in 2007. But when these projects became unsustainable to maintain, they fell beneath the radar particularly quickly. Leading to one of two ways the issue of empty enclosures would be tackled; ignorance, where the enclosure becomes non-topical to the administration, or that the exhibit becomes repurposed somehow. The enclosure isn't empty if it has beetles crawling around in it, and a skull display in the Central Africa Exhibit // Bongo House is certainly effective at something or another.
And so one common Cretney-era rebuttal I saw on Tripadvisor was to not so much focus on the coati climbing frame in the room [or lack thereof], but rather to talk of the zoo as a whole, listing off different reasons the animal/s might not have been outside that day.
I think this was something which Cretney's office wisened up towards; in his latter years Cretney's exhibit type moved from flash-in-the-pan side-exhibits to exhibits too big and expensive to fail [looking at you Tropical House], and Cretney's office managed to revitalise some of the old enclosures for new species [or, rather, returning species after years of absentia].

Read has been somewhat more honest. The enclosure hasn't been emptied to become a display of paraphanelia or a sanctuary for woodlice or something to be ignored - the exhibit was suitable for the standards of the time, but as time progressed as time does standards changed and so the empty exhibits are no longer suitable. Compared to human amenities, constructing a viable enclosure for any type of animal is challenging and expensive; and this is a truth Read's office has shown not to shy away from but take by the horns. I do not claim to know what new developments Read intends for the years to come; or how much of Cretney's final hurrah - the new snow leopard area, was ordered by Read; including the pedagogical material. But I think Read has managed to prove one thing through the announcement she has made - where Cretney's office was rather coy in making much any truly major change [I'd say Wild Explorers and the Tropical House were about the extent of this in regards to Cretney, who knows if Water+Wetlands, had it went on as planned, would've been of similar consequence], keeping much of the zoo infrastructurally unchanged from Knowles before him, Read has shown that she is more willing to make the large changes that Marwell needs to improve further, and what this involves we will have to wait and see. And if this translates also to the animal element of Marwell, then this ought to be welcomed.
 
NMM said:
I had a look to see what people were saying on social media. The main criticism was people preferring the money be spent new/improved exhibits instead.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with this sentiment! Who cares what the entrance is like, it is what's inside that matters,( fancy wrapping on a rubbish present doesn't make it better!). The majority of visitors I'm sure are more interested in the animals ( or sadly dinosaurs or Lego models!) than the entrance. Example, Cotswold wildlife park has the most basic entrance possible - I don't hear anyone complaining! Personally I would much rather ZSL hadn't spent the money on the new entrance at Whipsnade and brought in a few new species instead!
As for the tropical house at Marwell, I will still maintain the amount spent for what it added to the zoo visitor experience was a total waste of money! I don't regard it as a plus for the Cretney legacy, quite the opposite. Marwell is improving again but if all that money hadn't been wasted the improvement could happen more quickly
 
dillotest0 said:
One thing I find rather pivotal is how the two offices have responded to the now rather aged issue of 'not enough animals'.
With Cretney this was a sort of taboo. Though for what it's worth, I think this was a way of deflecting one particular thing - for the first years of his time in office, Cretney's developments were characterised by those which were flashy and relatively quickly done. The Central Africa exhibit in 2006, the Golden Lion Tamarin walkthrough in 2007. But when these projects became unsustainable to maintain, they fell beneath the radar particularly quickly. Leading to one of two ways the issue of empty enclosures would be tackled; ignorance, where the enclosure becomes non-topical to the administration, or that the exhibit becomes repurposed somehow. The enclosure isn't empty if it has beetles crawling around in it, and a skull display in the Central Africa Exhibit // Bongo House is certainly effective at something or another.
And so one common Cretney-era rebuttal I saw on Tripadvisor was to not so much focus on the coati climbing frame in the room [or lack thereof], but rather to talk of the zoo as a whole, listing off different reasons the animal/s might not have been outside that day.
I think this was something which Cretney's office wisened up towards; in his latter years Cretney's exhibit type moved from flash-in-the-pan side-exhibits to exhibits too big and expensive to fail [looking at you Tropical House], and Cretney's office managed to revitalise some of the old enclosures for new species [or, rather, returning species after years of absentia].

Read has been somewhat more honest. The enclosure hasn't been emptied to become a display of paraphanelia or a sanctuary for woodlice or something to be ignored - the exhibit was suitable for the standards of the time, but as time progressed as time does standards changed and so the empty exhibits are no longer suitable. Compared to human amenities, constructing a viable enclosure for any type of animal is challenging and expensive; and this is a truth Read's office has shown not to shy away from but take by the horns. I do not claim to know what new developments Read intends for the years to come; or how much of Cretney's final hurrah - the new snow leopard area, was ordered by Read; including the pedagogical material. But I think Read has managed to prove one thing through the announcement she has made - where Cretney's office was rather coy in making much any truly major change [I'd say Wild Explorers and the Tropical House were about the extent of this in regards to Cretney, who knows if Water+Wetlands, had it went on as planned, would've been of similar consequence], keeping much of the zoo infrastructurally unchanged from Knowles before him, Read has shown that she is more willing to make the large changes that Marwell needs to improve further, and what this involves we will have to wait and see. And if this translates also to the animal element of Marwell, then this ought to be welcomed.
Click to expand...


Quite an insightful analogy, of which I 100% agree with. I think that this new announcement of the entrance is a great step forward, and opens up opportunities for development and expansion where we haven't predicted or imagined before. A focous on re-establishing herds and groups/pairs is also a good move, a complete turnaround :D

Also as mentioned previously (response to @pipaluk, of whom I dont disagree with either) there will be an exhibit development this year aswell!

I haven't visited since Jan 24 as I've been lucky enough to visit 6 collections last year, but I plan on returning June time, so will be exciting to see everything! Still haven't seen the Thriving Through Nature if you'll believe it :(
 
I am glad Marwell is past the Cretiney era, and I hope the resurgence continues apace.

However I am not convinced a flashy new entrance is necessary, rather than improve the exhibits themselves.

Put some waterfowl back in the empty pond, put some llamas back in the first paddock, and put something, ANYTHING on the route out past the hippo house.

Bring back peccaries, wallabies, anteaters, kangaroos, wild boar, just fill up this chronically underused area.

Having an expensive monkey house with no monkeys in it is laughable.

Why did the South Lakes tigers go overseas? Why couldn't Marwell have them?

Couldn't they have taken any of the Cat Won't Survive animals?
 
I think there is a simple explanation for the differences in response to empty enclosures.

Cretney spent more than a decade reducing the number of animals held. It is obvious that was part of his strategy and therefore inevitable that Marwell would have been defensive about any criticism of this.

I believe Read regards this as a mistake, which is why they are now more open to discussing it, but the responses have been given some polish to sound publicly acceptable and not openly critical.

Looking back at the Cretney era, one thing that stands out is how different his final 12 months were to the rest of his reign. In that time we had Thriving Through Nature, the old bat-eared fox enclosure brought back into use for bush dogs, the old ocelot enclosure converted into an aviary for caracara and the announcement of the snow leopard extension. I am wondering if the board were asking questions about the cutbacks going too far. If so, could that also have been a factor in his resignation?
 
NMM said:
I think there is a simple explanation for the differences in response to empty enclosures.

Cretney spent more than a decade reducing the number of animals held. It is obvious that was part of his strategy and therefore inevitable that Marwell would have been defensive about any criticism of this.

I believe Read regards this as a mistake, which is why they are now more open to discussing it, but the responses have been given some polish to sound publicly acceptable and not openly critical.

Looking back at the Cretney era, one thing that stands out is how different his final 12 months were to the rest of his reign. In that time we had Thriving Through Nature, the old bat-eared fox enclosure brought back into use for bush dogs, the old ocelot enclosure converted into an aviary for caracara and the announcement of the snow leopard extension. I am wondering if the board were asking questions about the cutbacks going too far. If so, could that also have been a factor in his resignation?
Click to expand...
Did he go or was he pushed ? the things you mention could have been done at any time when he was there, but it was to little to late, we will never know ,but his cuts to the animal numbers went to far, and his time had come to an end.
 
okapis said:
Did he go or was he pushed ? the things you mention could have been done at any time when he was there, but it was to little to late, we will never know ,but his cuts to the animal numbers went to far, and his time had come to an end.
Click to expand...
I think it was more like stating the obvious!

If you compare the Cretney era with one of his illustrious predecessors and primarily responsible for the existence of Marwell as a zoo and wild animal park, John Knowles ..., IMPO it does not look favourably on Herr Cretney.
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
I think it was more like stating the obvious!

If you compare the Cretney era with one of his illustrious predecessors and primarily responsible for the existence of Marwell as a zoo and wild animal park, John Knowles ..., IMPO it does not look favourably on Herr Cretney.
Click to expand...
John Knowles founded, owned and built the place, and should be included in the lists which hold Badham, Scott, Wayre, Fisher, Durrell, Goymour, etc. They used their own money, their own initiative and were in it for the long term. That is how these places were founded. These days, their successors, the current CEO's are often temporary and sometimes come in with little zoo knowledge; flit in for a few years, do their worst (or best?) and move on, leaving a legacy for their successors.
 
In the days of the owner/operators back in the 60s through to the 80s, the likes of Durrell, Cansdale, Aspinall and Knowles were the "Big Beasts" of the zoo world as much as their animals.
That kind of charismatic captain is largely gone in favour of charitable ventures run by bean counters.
I don't necessarily think of it as an improvement but then I remember the recent case of the maniacal amputee covid denier who let his cats suffer and die, and I force myself to reconsider.....
 
I have just read back through the posts, provided on the last page or so, that have sparked from the news that there will be a new entrance area. There are a number of assertions made, by a core of about four posters, who have strong views on the evolution of Marwell and I am the first to agree that they should be able to express their views here. But they often are not party to the reality of the zoos situation and make assumptions that are misleading, or incorrect, and wish for an idealised past that is not going to return.

It is excellent news that the entrance area will be significantly improved and bodes well for subsequent developments within the Park. It was considered desirable to do that decades ago by John Knowles and then by subsequent managements, and schemes were developed to planning stage but had to be aborted due to cost and other considered priorities. First, and last, impressions are important and an improved entrance area should be regarded as a sound investment and not an ‘expensive cost’ that could be put towards a new animal exhibit. (I was amused about the concern that it takes 2/3 minutes before seeing the first animal – moving the location of the entry gate will not change the time the time it takes to get from your transport to seeing the first animal!)

I too will welcome new exhibits and new species to Marwell, and particularly hope that numbers of individual animals in ungulate groups can be strengthened. But low numbers and breeding potential for many antelope species, for example, throughout Europe make this a zoo community problem, not Marwell’s; whilst moving animals from outside of Europe and, from the wild, is even more complex.

It is easy to point the finger at the last CEO James Cretney as it was during his office that many species left the collection and enclosures emptied (although a number were put back into operation towards the end of his tenure). The day of the creator/owner figure-head zoo director, as had existed in many UK zoos in the 1970s when Marwell was opened, has almost gone and the role of the CEO is a very different one. He is responsible to trustees and relies on a management team to conduct the operation of a zoo in a legal, efficient and responsible way. The animal, conservation, veterinary and education managers will all be responsible for the diverse requirements of the living collection management and planning. Like the captain of a ship, the CEO is ultimately responsible, but it is fair to understand that most of the collection changes – and often for sound reasons, however unpopular they may be perceived - were instigated on a management level as, indeed, they are in most organisations.

I refrain from commenting further, but please remember than many people who work in zoos, including CEOs, look at ZooChat, and are often not in a position to be able to respond.
 
zooboy said:
I have just read back through the posts, provided on the last page or so, that have sparked from the news that there will be a new entrance area. There are a number of assertions made, by a core of about four posters, who have strong views on the evolution of Marwell and I am the first to agree that they should be able to express their views here. But they often are not party to the reality of the zoos situation and make assumptions that are misleading, or incorrect, and wish for an idealised past that is not going to return.
QUOTE]

As one of those 4 , I feel I have to point out a major flaw in this argument. The implication here is that the zoo was struggling financially, but this clearly was not the total picture - otherwise how did management find the money to build what at the time was at a cost proudly boasted as the 2nd most expensive zoo building in the UK?
It was just a question of priorities, priorities which I and many others believe were wrong - a Tropical House (with very little in it) and the mass destruction of the collection was not what I would have chosen over keeping the collection and adding to it at reasonable expense .
Click to expand...
 
To clarify the 2-3 minute walk before seeing animals is after going through the entrance gates, so moving the entrance further back will indeed decrease the walk to see your first animal once you have gone through the entrance.
 
SealionLDN said:
To clarify the 2-3 minute walk before seeing animals is after going through the entrance gates, so moving the entrance further back will indeed decrease the walk to see your first animal once you have gone through the entrance.
Click to expand...
I fully understood that. The point that amused me was the fact that the time taken to see the first animals in a zoo was considered important. Many zoos are designed so that there is a buffer zone between the entrance and the first animal exhibits, to give people time to adjust to a new environment. Paignton, for example, does this very well.
 
Well.... if there was any time for an anti-climax... then it was this one!
Invertebrates: No change.19 species.
Fish: Net loss of 1 species.
Reptiles: No change. 21 species.
Birds: Net loss of 1 species.
Mammals: No change. 58 species. Though curiously the 2023 inventory listed 57 at the end of the year....
And so very interestingly the total tally is a number equal to that of last year; 145 in all. This I think is good! Shows stability!
And even the net numbers of individual animals shows stability also; Mammals 190 as opposed to 2023's 194 [but for some reason in the report it is 90], Birds have had a slight decrease from 158 to 155, other groups are colonies so hard to tell for them.
Other than that... not much to say that is different from last year! Other than my personal sadness of the death of the two hamerkop; including the male. I hope Marwell doesn't go out of them!
Seems well!
 
dillotest0 said:
Invertebrates: No change.19 species.
Fish: Net loss of 1 species.
Reptiles: No change. 21 species.
Birds: Net loss of 1 species.
Mammals: No change. 58 species. Though curiously the 2023 inventory listed 57 at the end of the year....
And so very interestingly the total tally is a number equal to that of last year; 145 in all. This I think is good! Shows stability!
Click to expand...

Your mathematics isn't mathematic'ing :D if two species have been lost in total (one fish and one bird) then even with the increase in mammal total there should still be an overall loss of one species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top