Chester Zoo Natural Vision Plans

Paix said:
- Serious concerns remain about zoo's biodome project

And I qoute from the Article "Among their objections, CPRE claim that the development is “inappropriate” for the area. They believe that there would be a substantial loss of grade three agricultural land and they feel that it “would not contribute to the regeneration” of Chester City Centre."

It made me laugh, yet it angers me! :mad:
Click to expand...

Well, that is the most stupid thing that I've ever read (and I've read Pride and Prejudice :p).
The point is, Chester must own the land already, so if they do not build on it nobody wins. This valuable 'agriculture' land couldn't exactly be used by farmers unless Chester sold it (I wouldn't just to spite them :D).
So, rather than leave it blank and pointless, why not build the biodome and hotel to boost tourism and economy in Chester, create hundreds of jobs (it was over 650 jobs it would create, but with parts scrapped I guess that number comes down considerably), and most importantly conserve some endangered species.
The only reason I could find to scrap it is if there is any local, endangered wildlife that could not be successfully relocated.
 
Well said!

People just don't know how much conservation matters. On wild night in on BBC 2 last night they were talking about how conservation has got to incorporate people in order to work. The Biodome will be helping threatened species and helping local people by creating loads of jobs and increasing tourism.

What could be better in these troubled times?
 
I love the Pride and Prejudice Joke! :D But the thing is, green belt land holds no purpose anyway, it does look nice, mainly they are just fields and hold no Wildlife purpose and thirdly, sure its great to preserve a green britian, but this is for a green cause.

I hate people. :p
 
Last edited:
Agreed, there is nothing better. I am in need of a job and want to get into something at the zoo. Hopefully I will be able to drive by the time it happens, so it will be my best chance to find work there.

Also, I meant to watch Wild Night In last night but my dad was watching football and my telly isn't working :(. Hopefully it will be on iPlayer.
 
We need to build up Eco-Tourism and Natural Vision is another oportunity to start up buisness.

If they object to this then what will become of the later phases, especially the new African side of the zoo!
 
Paix said:
- Serious concerns remain about zoo's biodome project

And I qoute from the Article "Among their objections, CPRE claim that the development is “inappropriate” for the area. They believe that there would be a substantial loss of grade three agricultural land and they feel that it “would not contribute to the regeneration” of Chester City Centre."

It made me laugh, yet it angers me! :mad:
Click to expand...

Considering the condition of soil in the Chester area, the loss of this land will have an effect on the local farmers (Chester rent the fields to farmers or did so).

It takes years, decades, even longer in some places to create good soil, while this is not prime soil it is useful to grow stuff in.

It's also the most valid case I have seen anyone come up with against the proposals.
 
Paix said:
I love the Pride and Prejudice Joke! :D But the thing is, green belt land holds no purpose anyway, it does look nice, mainly they are just fields and hold no Wildlife purpose and thirdly, sure its great to preserve a green britian, but this is for a green cause.

I hate people. :p
Click to expand...

Am not sure if it is actually "green belt" land as this term is often confused with people. (I will have a hunt down if I get time to find out).

It is however a green field site and therefore the lose of any land like this is damaging to the environment and the local wildlife.

This is a different thou as building here will not join Chester and Ellesmere port up, if wont even come close to doing so considering the is lots of farming land between the two.
 
taun said:
Am not sure if it is actually "green belt" land as this term is often confused with people. (I will have a hunt down if I get time to find out).

It is however a green field site and therefore the lose of any land like this is damaging to the environment and the local wildlife.

This is a different thou as building here will not join Chester and Ellesmere port up, if wont even come close to doing so considering the is lots of farming land between the two.
Click to expand...

Overall though, and I dont care what other people think, we DO have a global crisis including our own country and its developments like these, that must go ahead, to educate, conserve and protect wildlife, along with breeding and increasing numbers in captivity!
 
Good point, I know nothing about different soil types etc, but will take your word. I still don't think it is the best reason in the world though, since there is so much agriculture land around all of the backroads and villages near Chester (Bickley, Tilstone, Tarvin, Kelsall, Ashton, Beeston, Church Minshull etc.) These can't be too bad, since there are many farms around these areas.
It is Chester's land, and if they want to stop renting the fields then they can do, so is the way of things. I can see how it would annoy them, don't get me wrong, but surely they realise that it is not their land, and if Chester choose to stop leasing it then they can't kick up a fuss.
If farmers want rights to the land so that it will be secure, they should buy plots rather than rent them. In the long run, it probably wouldn't be any more expensive (like it is more expensive to rent a house, since you may pay the mortgage several times over), and it would be their land to do with as they please. Better still, it would be secure and nobody could take it away from them (so long as they paid their mortgage).

There may be bits I don't understand, and if so I'm sorry cause I'm not an expert, but to halt such a massive development because of a few stubborn farmers is just wrong.
 
Bear in mind that this article is from the same Laura Jones who wrote the previous "People power helps to scrap Chester rainforest plan" rubbish. I'm beginning to think she has an axe to grind.
taun said:
Considering the condition of soil in the Chester area, the loss of this land will have an effect on the local farmers (Chester rent the fields to farmers or did so). It takes years, decades, even longer in some places to create good soil, while this is not prime soil it is useful to grow stuff in.
Click to expand...
There is no animal farming in land adjacent to the zoo's perimeters in order to maintain a bio buffer zone, it's part of the plan to shield zoo animals from diseases such as foot and mouth. The Heart of Africa site is not farmed at all and the quality of the soil is dreadful, it would take considerable work to make it suitable even for grazing.

In short, from a farming perspective, this (relatively) small area of land is of no consequence whatsoever. By building Heart of Africa, there will be no loss of arable or grazing land.

By my reckoning, between the current northerly zoo boundary across from the Tropical Realm and the nearest built up area (the houses in Wolverham bordering the A5117) it's a distance of 3.48km. By building Heart of Africa that distance is reduced by ~120m. Does that really make a difference?

And regarding the hotel; bear in mind that there are a number of options being discussed, including the one proposed for the other end of the site, on the area between the old Przewalski horse paddock and the A41. This area is currently arable.
 
I find this opposition quite depressing, you'd think they were trying to build Disneyland Chester in a farmer's best field...

I'd also like to point out that Laura Jones can't write for toffee, in her article environmentalist should be environmentalists and she is inconsistent in her use of capital letters, see 'Gorilla' and 'chimpanzees'.

Little things perhaps but it somehow makes me feel better to point them out!
 
Hehe, too true. Out of interest, do you use capitals when talking about a species? For example, which of these is correct:

a) I took a photo of the Sumatran Tiger at Chester Zoo.

or

b) I took a photo of the sumatran tiger at Chester Zoo.

Or does it not matter, so long as you remain consistant? Also, does it depend on whether the subspecies has a place name? For example do you use capital for 'Sumatran' but not if something is say 'Giant' or 'Red'?

On topic, I think that this woman is just anti-zoos by the sound of things, and from reading the articles some of them seem completely misinformed.
 
Javan Rhino said:
Hehe, too true. Out of interest, do you use capitals when talking about a species? For example, which of these is correct:

a) I took a photo of the Sumatran Tiger at Chester Zoo.

or

b) I took a photo of the sumatran tiger at Chester Zoo.

Or does it not matter, so long as you remain consistant? Also, does it depend on whether the subspecies has a place name? For example do you use capital for 'Sumatran' but not if something is say 'Giant' or 'Red'?
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that species names should follow the normal rules of the English language so capital letters should be used for proper nouns only (e.g. the names of people or countries).

For example, I think you should write:-

Thomson’s gazelle; slender-horned gazelle; Chapman’s zebra; plains zebra; Indian rhinoceros; white rhinoceros; giant eland; Lord Derby’s eland etc
 
Tim May said:
Personally, I think that species names should follow the normal rules of the English language so capital letters should be used for proper nouns only (e.g. the names of people or countries).

For example, I think you should write:-

Thomson’s gazelle; slender-horned gazelle; Chapman’s zebra; plains zebra; Indian rhinoceros; white rhinoceros; giant eland; Lord Derby’s eland etc
Click to expand...

I agree entirely.
 
it is entirely a personal decision. A lot of authors use capitals for animal names to avoid confusion (eg, Long-legged Warbler is definitive, whereas long-legged warbler could mistakenly be taken to just mean a random species of warbler that has long legs). However if a word has a capital when in general use (eg, Sumatran) then that rule must also follow when used in an animal's name, whatever your preferences. For myself, I usually only use capitals for peoples' names and place-names (eg, Sumatran tiger, not Sumatran Tiger)
 
Ahhh, I always use caps for some reason, especially in lists or titles of photos. For example, heres an example from my fictional zoo (I'm sad, I know :p).

"Fauna Gardens Aquarium and Reptile Centre will be a large building central to the park and will feature three distinct areas. The first shall be the 'Aqua Dome,' a large glass structure with water running down the sides. This area will include many species typical of an aquarium, such as Thornback Rays, Tomato Clownfish, Red Lionfish and Sand Tiger Sharks."
 
I went to the WAZA site to see if that would shed any light on this off-topic discussion and merely learned that the site is inconsistent with naming and capitalization :D

But if we want references (rather than our own opinion):
Style Manual : University of Minnesota

This is, of course, USA... and UK usage is as likely as not entirely different :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The use (or misuse) of capital letters is always the subject of debate; personally I don't mind either way on an informal forum, but in print and in the publications of zoos and societies one would hope their authors would observe convention and at the very least, be consistent.
Javan Rhino said:
For example, which of these is correct:

a) I took a photo of the Sumatran Tiger at Chester Zoo.

or

b) I took a photo of the sumatran tiger at Chester Zoo.
Click to expand...
Actually, neither. Sumatra is a proper noun, so it should always be capitalised, tiger is not, so it's all lower case. One exception are words used in titles or headings, such as when you add a photo to the gallery or start a new thread. Unusually for Chester, their own website is correct in this case: Chester Zoo - Sumatran Tiger

With animal names there's usually no need to change the laws of the English language and in this instance the rule is simple enough. The common names of species are all lower-case, unless their name includes a proper noun.

Chlidonias' point is a good one and where there is potential for confusion it's acceptable to use upper case to differentiate a species name from a descriptive term, although it's preferable to stick with all lower-case and add the scientific name in parenthesis where possible.

WAZA is inconsistent, but then so are Chester Zoo's own publications, which is perhaps from where Laura Jones cut 'n' pasted her text. Organisations using correct capitalisation include the National Geographic Society, Discovery and WWF (so it's not an English thing), CITIES, Durrel, RSPB, ZooLex, ZSL, BBC, Times, CNN etc. I'm with those guys.

But enough of the OT stuff... Perhaps a moderator could move this to a general forum rather than dilute the Natural Vision thread?
 
SMR said:
Actually, neither. Sumatra is a proper noun, so it should always be capitalised, tiger is not, so it's all lower case. One exception are words used in titles or headings, such as when you add a photo to the gallery or start a new thread. Unusually for Chester, their own website is correct in this case: Chester Zoo - Sumatran Tiger
Click to expand...

SMR, Shouldn't it be Sumatra tiger? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top