Thinking about might have been...

[Panthera1981]

Hello all!

As most of us are aware, ZSL was in deep financial trouble during the 1980's with London Zoo coming perilously close to full closure in the early 1990's. For the benefit of this debate, let's think for a moment that this actually happened and London Zoo is now no more:

1.What would have become of the Regent's Park site? Would it have just been opened up and full of architectural curiousities?

2.What would of become of Whipsnade? Would London's closure have been a blessing in disguise?

3.How would ZSL's standing/reputation in the zoo community been affected? Positive,negative?

 

[Pertinax]

2.What would of become of Whipsnade? Would London's closure have been a blessing in disguise?

Maybe it would have become temporarily mothballed and then developed again as a new Safari or Wildlife Park by another set of owners. Or failing that, reverted to its earlier use as a Farm Estate, or developed as a Golf Course or Country Club- or a Gliding Club perhaps. The land would certainly have more potential for other uses than the London site I think.

 

[gentle lemur]

I suspect that no-one could come up with a better solution for the Regents Park site. Breaking up a learned society with charitable status and a Royal Charter might have been difficult. I suppose that the Council could have leased the site and sold the livestock to a commercial zoo operator, probably for a nominal amount; but there might might have been complications because the site is part of a Royal Park and perhaps no company would have been interested (although Mrs Thatcher's government might have been attracted to such an idea).
My guess is that a deal was done by the great and the good in a smoke-filled room behind closed doors etc. I think the late Lord Zuckerman (formerly Sir Solly) may have had a hand in it as he was the President of ZSL in the early 1980s, after being Secretary for many years, and he was also a Whitehall insider having been Chief Scientific Adviser to a previous government. Anyway HMG provided a few million pounds and the crisis was averted.

Alan

 

[IanRRobinson]

My guess is that a deal was done by the great and the good in a smoke-filled room behind closed doors etc. I think the late Lord Zuckerman (formerly Sir Solly) may have had a hand in it as he was the President of ZSL in the early 1980s, after being Secretary for many years, and he was also a Whitehall insider having been Chief Scientific Adviser to a previous government. Anyway HMG provided a few million pounds and the crisis was averted.Alan

I'm sorry, but this is emphatically not what happened.

The problems of London Zoo were handled by David Trippier, Minister for State at the Department of the Environment. He took charge as his boss, Michael Heseltine, had been on the board of Zoo Operations Limited, which had run the zoo into the ground.

Mr Trippier was MP for Rossengale and Darwen, and made a great point of how his Lancashire constituents would not want to see public money spent on a London tourist attraction. Evidently he enjoyed the Terminator image, for at one point he said "Read my lips - no more money".

The Conservative Government (the Labour Opposition was more sympathetic) would have seen London Zoo close. Indeed it might be argued why shouldn't they have taken that attitude, as the ruling Council of ZSL had voted to close the Zoo, with just one dissenting voice - that of John Edwards, whose strength and courage in those dark days should never be forgotten.

London Zoo was saved by the Fellows passing a vote of no confidence in Council, by the gift of £1.25 million from the Emir of Kuwait, (as a gesture of thanks following the UK's role in liberating his country from the invading Iraqi army during the previous winter's Gulf War), and by public donations to the "Save Our Zoo" campaign. And both the Zoo's staff and its collection were cut hard.

The great and good, I'm afraid, let down London Zoo in 1991. They even came back for another attempt at the exercise the following year, with similar consequences. It really was a very near-run thing.

 

[gentle lemur]

I'm sorry, but this is emphatically not what happened.

I'm happy to be corrected and I don't doubt that you are right.
I was thinking about the earlier problems, when the government did provide money for the ZSL in the 1980s. Did this harden attitudes in 1991?

Alan

 

[Panthera1981]

I'd be inclined to think that, if London had closed, ZSL would have been "forced" to invest in a long-term plan for Whipsnade-out of necessity rather than choice as the majority of the living collection would have had to have been moved to Bedfordshire in the short term at least. Certainly speaking to those around at the time, Whipsnade had been gradually moving away and distancing itself from London and coming into it's own. London's salvation saw ZSL reign it back in.

What plans there were is anyone's guess. IMO, London's closure, though traumatic, would ultimately have been a blessing for Whipsnade. I always have this feeling of always the bridesmaid, never the bride.

 

[IanRRobinson]

I'd be inclined to think that, if London had closed, ZSL would have been "forced" to invest in a long-term plan for Whipsnade-out of necessity rather than choice as the majority of the living collection would have had to have been moved to Bedfordshire in the short term at least.

What plans there were is anyone's guess. IMO, London's closure, though traumatic, would ultimately have been a blessing for Whipsnade. I always have this feeling of always the bridesmaid, never the bride.

I have to disagree with this analysis. Whipsnade has undeniably suffered from neglect, but that neglect ultimately stems from a chronic institutional lack of interest within ZSL in zoos in general, and its own collections in particular. The Society has not been run in such a way to clearly emphasise that the wellbeing and progress of its animal collections are pivotal to all of its fields of activity. Its own Secretary railed against those opposed to the closure of London Zoo in 1991, saying that he would never have agreed to accept the post had he known that there were so many of its Fellows with such an attachment to "a mere menagerie" . Those were his words; ask Tim May.

if London Zoo had closed in 1991/92 I am quite sure that the effect on ZSL as a whole would have been similar to a battlefield amputation at the time of the Battle of Waterloo. However unavoidable the surgery, the ensuing trauma would have been lethal.

It would not have been possible to move the majority of the animals from London to Whipsnade. The latter lacked - and still does - an Aquarium, a purpose built Reptile House, and purpose built housing for delicate smaller birds and mammals. What would have happened to that world class collection of invertebrates? Quite possibly they might have been moved, but they would have gone off exhibit. And it would have been years before they could have gone on show again. The removal of some ungulates from London to Whipsnade was hard enough - for example, an incipient ZSL group of Sable Antelope was lost because of fatalities due to the lack of suitable housing when the animals were moved.

All this would have cost Whipsnade money that it didn't possess. I vividly remember Doug Richardson saying in 1992 that if one of London's remaining trio of Asiatic Elephants had been sent to Whipsnade, the latter would have gone over budget.

At bottom, though, ZSL would have suffered a cataclysmic blow to its reputation. Dignitaries would have arrived at the Institute for high profile symposia against the backdrop of an abandoned zoo, maybe with various bitterly opposed factions picketing the gates. They would have instantly decided not to touch ZSL with a bargepole. For many years afterwards, and quite possibly still today, getting donations from wealthy institutions and individuals was hamstrung by a reluctance to invest in an organisation seemingly hell-bent on closing its oldest and most familiar brand.

By all means oppose the lack of investment at Whipsnade, and its vast untouched acres. But please don't fall into the trap of assuming that it would have been better off had London Zoo closed. The goal should be, IMHO, to run the two collections as one site. With an uncompromising attitude towards the pursuit of excellence, the combination could again be world class.

 

[Panthera1981]

I have to disagree with this analysis. Whipsnade has undeniably suffered from neglect, but that neglect ultimately stems from a chronic institutional lack of interest within ZSL in zoos in general, and its own collections in particular. The Society has not been run in such a way to clearly emphasise that the wellbeing and progress of its animal collections are pivotal to all of its fields of activity. Its own Secretary railed against those opposed to the closure of London Zoo in 1991, saying that he would never have agreed to accept the post had he known that there were so many of its Fellows with such an attachment to . Those were his words; ask Tim May.

if London Zoo had closed in 1991/92 I am quite sure that the effect would have been similar to a battlefield amputation at the time of the Battle of Waterloo. However unavoidable the surgery, the ensuing trauma would have been lethal.

It would not have been possible to move the majority of the animals from London to Whipsnade. The latter lacked - and still does - an Aquarium, a purpose built Reptile House, and purpose built housing for delicate smaller birds and mammals. What would have happened to that world class collection of invertebrates? Quite possibly they would have been moved, but they would have gone off exhibit. And it would have been years before they coulkd have gone on show again. The removal of some ungulates from London to Whipsnade was hard enough - for example, an incipient ZSL group of Sable Antelope was lost because of fatalities due to the lack of suitable housing when the animals were moved.

All this would have cost Whipsnade money that it didn't possess. I vividly remember Doug Richardson saying in 1992 that if one of London's remaining trio of Asiatic Elephants had been sent to Whipsnade, the latter would have gone over budget.

At bottom, though, ZSL would have suffered a cataclysmic blow to its organisational brand. Dignitaries would have arrived at the Institute for high profile symposia against the backdrop of an abandoned zoo, maybe with various bitterly opposed factions picketing the gates. They would have instantly decided not to touch ZSL with a bargepole. For many years afterwards, and quite possibly still today, getting donations from wealthy institutions and individuals was hamstrung by a reluctance to invest in an organisation seemingly hell-bent on closing its oldest and most familiar brand.

By all means oppose the lack of investment at Whipsnade, and its vast untouched acres. But please don't fall into the trap of assuming that it would have been better off had London Zoo closed. The goal should be, IMHO, to run the two collections as one site. With an uncompromising attitude towards the pursuit of excellence, the combination could again be world class.

Thankyou Ian. Being only my very early teens at the time it's nice to get opinion from those who were there "at the frontline."

I suppose this begs the question why this anti-zoo attitude persisted/persists in the Society? Failure to modernise? Ineptness?

 

[Pertinax]

but that neglect ultimately stems from a chronic institutional lack of interest within ZSL in zoos in general, and its own collections in particular.

Interesting to see this comment as I have always sensed this, particularly when I had some connection with the Zoo many years ago.