Welsh Mountain Zoo Welsh Mountain Zoo
- Thread starter CZJimmy
- Start date
Back to the scheduled lemur discussion.
Just lost my post! Sorry, but I'm adding a quick comment on metric. I'm always horrified to hear British people talking in metric (especially if they are my age or older) unless referring to an athletics event or something over a metric distance. In the early 1980s I quite fancied training as a primary school teacher, but I realised I'd have to teach children metric and I knew I could not do it. As CJ said to Reggie in the original "Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin", he could come to work in a dress and pretend to be Kathy Kirby - "but I don't, it's not the British way". The other week I was congratulating the owner of Filey Bird Garden on her new labels that gave Imperial preference over metric! I also think decimal currency is to blame for many of today's problems as there is no connection with even the recent past. I was only nine when it came in, but before that change would have coins going back to the 1890s. There was continuity not detachment. Anyway I'll shut up, sorry to go off topic again.
Back on topic, I like the Gibbon, Spider Monkey and Snow Leopard cages. They look like proper zoo cages not trendy attempted replicas of the wild (if there were a Campaign for Real Zoos I'd be in it).
The gibbon, spider monkey and snow leopard cages might look like "proper zoo cages", from the era of Belle Vue and Bostock and Wombwell, but thankfully times are changing for the better.
Well said - appreciating the traditional zoo archetecture is wonderful - don't get me wrong, however times change and it is realised that these animals need larger, more natural enclosures. Enclosures are to be suited for the animal, not the guest
But I hear Parrotsandrew, I would not like to see these enclosures demolished. What I would like is smaller, more appropriate species housed in them.
Taking Chester as an example, the enclosure next to bush dogs is the same sort of traditional cage, and used to house baboons and gibbons to name a couple of species - now however it holds a pair of Reb-billed blue magpies. Now it is suitable, AND zoo history is staying in place
I won't prolong this, as it won't get either of us anywhere
D) but I would say that if you're watching the Reggie/CJ scenes and sympathising with CJ decrying Reggie's individuality(/downright weirdness) I think you're missing the point!And I didn't get where I am today by missing the point.
I'm also fascinated by how what year is stamped on the coins affects the state of British society.
To take a phrase used by another sitcom great (Sir Humphrey Appleby, albeit with dubious sincerity), Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.
Nothing wrong with them looking like cages in my book (though a little landscaping would be nice!), but all three, and the gibbon exhibit in particular, could with being at least 50-75% bigger.
Taking Chester as an example, the enclosure next to bush dogs is the same sort of traditional cage, and used to house baboons and gibbons to name a couple of species - now however it holds a pair of Reb-billed blue magpies. Now it is suitable, AND zoo history is staying in place
Interesting that that aviary is praised on this thread within minutes of its demolition being called for here: https://www.zoochat.com/community/posts/464965
Humans, eh?
Last edited by a moderator:
That's not very open-minded, it's probably best for education and yourself that you didn't follow that career path. If you were in the 19th century would you be disregarding Darwin's new ideas as piffle?
I can understand your logic of liking continuity with the past but by the same logic there's no going back as that would destroy continuity for most people under forty. Besides, as Magauri pointed out, there's a straightforward logic and universal intuitiveness inherent in metric which is lacking in imperial.
I've not got a problem with whether enclosures look like a cage or an attempted replica of the wild. However I do like them to be reasonably spacious and full of furniture and enrichments, the enclosures you mention have failings in those regards and, in my opinion, should be given some priority for improvements or replacement.
Last edited:
Oh dear!
It really doesn't take much to be reasonably happy with both metric and Imperial units and I didn't get where I am today without quoting CJ (or David Nobbs) at every possible opportunity but cages shaped like Nissen huts have no place in any zoo today (in my humble opinion) - as Maguari realised while I was typing this post.
Aah! I feel better now
Alan
It really doesn't take much to be reasonably happy with both metric and Imperial units and I didn't get where I am today without quoting CJ (or David Nobbs) at every possible opportunity but cages shaped like Nissen huts have no place in any zoo today (in my humble opinion) - as Maguari realised while I was typing this post.
Aah! I feel better now
Alan
Last edited:
Interesting that that aviary is praised on this thread within minutes of its demolition being called for here: https://www.zoochat.com/community/posts/464965
Humans, eh?
I noticed that
- I have no real problem with that aviary as it doesn't seem [to me] to be bad for the birds.On the pros, it is a great way of still housing a species there and being a piece of history. On the cons, I have to agree that it is ugly. Because I like the history of it it would be a shame to see it go (even though I only remember kea before the current residents) but if it does go then I can see why
Last edited by a moderator:
My final comment! I was just borrowing CJ's quote for my opinion on the metric system - I like Reggie's individuality and weirdness; I've always wanted to be Reggie (without the being married or in a relationship part).
Before I'm 22 minutes late for bed (Zoo Chat difficulties at Bridlington), it may be because I'm from a different era (one even before my own I suspect), but I've never for one second thought the Gibbon or Spider Monkey cages at WMZ to be too small. I'd call them enormous! Sewerby Zoo had Gibbons in the 1960s/early 1970s and thier cage WAS small. Even I'd say that. The outer part (and I'm about to use Imperial!) was something like 10-12 feet square and about 8 feet high. It was one of a row of three primate cages that in the 1980s were converted into one. Now the Capuchins it housed have been removed to an even larger exhibit and a single Violaceous Touraco lives in the old cage.
Shorts. I think Darwin's ideas were pifflle! I'd rather believe in a progressive creationism. Anyway this is again off topic and I don't claim to be a scientist or a theologian, so I'll depart. I'm not at all broad-minded by the way!!
Last edited:
johnstoni.
Well-Known Member
Really, both the spider monkeys and gibbons could do with some low-cost, open, exhibits, preferably with some live trees in them. I hope this is planned at some point.
A lemur walk-through exhibit is a good addition, however I would also like to see this in a wooded/semi-wooded area, I despise primate 'paddocks' flanked by trees.
I find the 'arch' style cages at WMZ interesting, worthy of preserving maybe, but no longer suitable for large cats or monkeys. I like the photograph in the gallery of the former chimpanzee cage, now a beautiful callitrichid exhibit:
http://www.zoochat.com/218/tamarin-marmoset-enclosure-92117/
A lemur walk-through exhibit is a good addition, however I would also like to see this in a wooded/semi-wooded area, I despise primate 'paddocks' flanked by trees.
I find the 'arch' style cages at WMZ interesting, worthy of preserving maybe, but no longer suitable for large cats or monkeys. I like the photograph in the gallery of the former chimpanzee cage, now a beautiful callitrichid exhibit:
http://www.zoochat.com/218/tamarin-marmoset-enclosure-92117/
Enormous? Really? Adequate, at a push - the spider monkey one would be tolerable if it were better-furnished - but certainly no more than that. For such active animals the gibbon exhibit is far too small.
This debate I'm steering well clear of, because it will not do anything for either of our states of mind (or the thread's own coherency!) if we start on this!
I'm not at all sure that's something you should be proud of.
That callitrichid exhibit is one of the best exhibits at WMZ, and a great way of modernising the husbandry without losing the history.
I don't take myself at all seriously and I am quite easy going.
Back to the WMZ, I'm sticking with the cages being enormous! The callitrichid exhibit isn't one of my favourites there, but these days I don't have much interest in callitrichids (unlike in the early 1980s when I'd admire them for ages in the Clore). I am genuinely surprised that other zoo enthusiasts don't seem to like traditional cages. Having got into a debate on this on the Chester 2011 thread the other week, I'm not going to repeat myself though. Mind you, thinking about it some former Flamingo Land keepers I knew well and who were older than me thought animals should have very large quarters. I am wondering if I am one of the few disciples of the late Clinton Keeling (a former resident of Chesterfield of course) around. Mmmm. One of my favourite zoo stories was told to me by a longstanding Flamingo Land keeper when I showed him a photograph including a view of an old monkey cage near the Ape House. He told me that shortly after starting at the zoo in the late 1960s he had been bitten by a Green Monkey in that cage. He told the Head Keeper who asked "What did you do?" The reply was "I got out," to which the Head Keeper responded "Well get back in there and hit it with a shovel then it won't do it again." Those were the good old days! No pussyfooting around the animals then or Health and Safety nonsense, proper cages and animal houses containing mostly wild-caught animals and no conservation claptrap. Bliss. Oh to invent a time machine. Can I really be the only one to think like this? Maybe I am (but I do it with a big smile
).
I have absolutely no problem with traditional cages, so long as they are suitable for the animals they contain. A good cage can be as good as any other exhibit. But we're not talking about those cages here. These are pretty barren and in at least one case visibly too small.
A man I knew (though not as well as many on here) and with whom I had one of the more memorable telephone conversations of my life. He had a lot of good ideas about zoo education and is much missed. But reports I have heard of his own zoo (a mere 20 minutes or so from my home) are not good.
Mmmm. One of my favourite zoo stories was told to me by a longstanding Flamingo Land keeper when I showed him a photograph including a view of an old monkey cage near the Ape House. He told me that shortly after starting at the zoo in the late 1960s he had been bitten by a Green Monkey in that cage. He told the Head Keeper who asked "What did you do?" The reply was "I got out," to which the Head Keeper responded "Well get back in there and hit it with a shovel then it won't do it again." Those were the good old days! No pussyfooting around the animals then or Health and Safety nonsense, proper cages and animal houses containing mostly wild-caught animals and no conservation claptrap. Bliss. Oh to invent a time machine. Can I really be the only one to think like this? Maybe I am (but I do it with a big smile
Is there no room for a happy medium, at all? You would appear to be happy with nothing short of that exact 1960s ethos. And at the risk of stating the obvious, it's not the 1960s any more.
And 'no conservation claptrap'? I don't even know where to begin. You could debate how great a contribution zoos make to conservation, but they provide a good deal of funding for in-situ conservation work and there are a number of species, from Partula to Arabian Oryx to Hawai'ian Geese (to pick some 'classics') that owe their continued existence to zoo breeding. And if you're relying on wild stocks to fill your zoos, you'll need to conserve those wild populations of big cats and elephants, won't you?
I think Parrotsandrew might just be trying to wind people up....
Maguari. I've no objection to in situ (I don't know how to get italics here) conservation and zoos supporting it, I'd just like zoos not to go on about conservation all the time and to exhibit species that are not rare or endangered. Also I think there's not enough variety in British collections. At one time places were proud to have something different, but not any more it seems.
As far as the 1960s go, I suppose I could be yearning for my early childhood (many memorable visits to Flamingo Park). I freely admit I wish it was the 1960s or 1970s and not just where zoos are concerned, as there's very little I like about the 21st century. On a personal level I could make a better fist of my life too, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I can't comment on Pan's Garden as I did not visit it and have had no first hand reports of it.
Chlidonias. I'd prefer to call it stimulating a debate! As I said, though, I do say things with a big smile. I have, however, reached the age where everything was better in the past although, and I'll whisper this, there are some things I like about modern zoos (after all, I said I liked the Lemur Walk-through at the Yorkshire Wildlife Park, then there's Lorikeet feeding exhibits, more bird displays etc). Where the WMZ is concerned I don't want it to change as I like it so much.
As far as the 1960s go, I suppose I could be yearning for my early childhood (many memorable visits to Flamingo Park). I freely admit I wish it was the 1960s or 1970s and not just where zoos are concerned, as there's very little I like about the 21st century. On a personal level I could make a better fist of my life too, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I can't comment on Pan's Garden as I did not visit it and have had no first hand reports of it.
Chlidonias. I'd prefer to call it stimulating a debate! As I said, though, I do say things with a big smile. I have, however, reached the age where everything was better in the past although, and I'll whisper this, there are some things I like about modern zoos (after all, I said I liked the Lemur Walk-through at the Yorkshire Wildlife Park, then there's Lorikeet feeding exhibits, more bird displays etc). Where the WMZ is concerned I don't want it to change as I like it so much.
I don't take myself at all seriously and I am quite easy going.
Back to the WMZ, I'm sticking with the cages being enormous! The callitrichid exhibit isn't one of my favourites there, but these days I don't have much interest in callitrichids (unlike in the early 1980s when I'd admire them for ages in the Clore). I am genuinely surprised that other zoo enthusiasts don't seem to like traditional cages. Having got into a debate on this on the Chester 2011 thread the other week, I'm not going to repeat myself though. Mind you, thinking about it some former Flamingo Land keepers I knew well and who were older than me thought animals should have very large quarters. I am wondering if I am one of the few disciples of the late Clinton Keeling (a former resident of Chesterfield of course) around. Mmmm. One of my favourite zoo stories was told to me by a longstanding Flamingo Land keeper when I showed him a photograph including a view of an old monkey cage near the Ape House. He told me that shortly after starting at the zoo in the late 1960s he had been bitten by a Green Monkey in that cage. He told the Head Keeper who asked "What did you do?" The reply was "I got out," to which the Head Keeper responded "Well get back in there and hit it with a shovel then it won't do it again." Those were the good old days! No pussyfooting around the animals then or Health and Safety nonsense, proper cages and animal houses containing mostly wild-caught animals and no conservation claptrap. Bliss. Oh to invent a time machine. Can I really be the only one to think like this? Maybe I am (but I do it with a big smile
If you are the only one who thinks it is correct to belt a monkey with a shovel, well that can only be a good thing, with reference to your nostalgic view of the old money, which, incidentally I remember using as a child, if you regard hitting the animals with implements and regard the good conservation work many zoos are involved in as claptrap,causes me to wonder if you are indeed a full "shilling"
I never went there so cannot comment from experience, but heard similar about Pan's Garden from a number of different(and reliable) sources- which leads me to believe it.
Perhaps it was a similar situation- lack of finance- to Glasgow Zoo?- the(then) Director there also published a lot of impressively knowledgeable articles on animal management and behaviours at the Zoo (it was one of the first places to introduce 'enrichment' activities- in the large Himalayan Bear enclosure) yet the Zoo itself was in a deplorable state and I was shocked at the state of it on my only visit there-conditions were by far the worst I've ever seen in a larger UK zoo.
Like yourself I only visited Glasgow Zoo once, the year before it closed, it was in a deplorable state, however the few animals they had were all in good physical condition and the site itself was situated in a picturesque valley in Calder Park, I believe some of the animals were rented from Mary Chipperfield, although the zoo was in a bad state I am glad I made this visit, the staff were very friendly towards their one and only visitor that day, I can't say I have ever been to a zoo before or since where I have been their only visitor. Regarding the Pan Zoo, or was it officially known as the Ashover Zoological Gardens?, I never visited so therefore cannot comment, it could not have been very big however, as it states in a zoo book I have that it consisted of only two acres, therefore no more than a back garden zoo, I did used to enjoy Clinton Keeling's writings though, he had the ability to make my sides ache with laughter at some of the humorous things he wrote.
johnstoni.
Well-Known Member
Wasn't the name change of Keeling's collection due to the fact that his wife owned the land, and she wished to have some input into it? I remember reading how resistant he was to the name change, and to the inclusion of certain domestic species throughout the site.
@ ParrotsAndrew - I get the nostalgia for a different time, I really do...in some ways the zoo industry as a whole was more honest back then, the purpose of a zoo was for people to marvel at, and therefore connect with, weird and wonderful life forms they may never have encountered before, or be likely to see anywhere else. Todays 'conservation theatre', and new exhibits needing to earn their marketing value through being 'cute' or identifiable in some other way (ie family structure, courtship), rather than 'of the other', fierce, unknown, or impressive, could be seen as a slightly bewildering state of affairs. I worked in a collection for a while where efforts were made not to dramatise the exhibits or make them appear fantastic or scary, in order for young children to relate to them (as opposed to exhibiting large or dangerous animals above eye level or in pits), yet in some ways that collection pioneered the fetishization of 'relatable cuteness' that we now see so often in the number of lemur, meerkat, penguin, and otter exhibits that appear everywhere.
I think for this reason, I still hold places like Howletts and Port Lympne in high regard....because their ethos is still fairly clear (although economy has started to erode that for the majority of the public IMO).
I also get your romanticism of the Welsh Mountain Zoo. For someone who clearly appreciates zoo history, this is one of the few remaining under-developed sites still open to the public. Of course new exhibits have appeared, but it is very much a 'zoo', with many older structures still standing. However, I disagree that those structures still need to house their original occupants. Someone mentioned Glasgow....the way they appropriated the polar bear exhibit for ocelots was, in my mind, genius, and the lush planting really made something out of a space no longer suitable for mentally-sound ursids. Had they bulldozed the pit, and put up a wood and glass exhibit, I think it would have been a shame.
I love zoo history, I love when older buildings are brought back to life, I think you should be excited about the changes at Dudley, given your nostalgia for eras past. However, we are no longer an authentic colonial power, nor should we be, and so it will never again be possible to plunder and destroy resources in other countries of the empire quite like we used to. Modern zoos are a hangover of those times, indeed today there are still a few elderly primates and elephants, set against carefully themed exhibit backdrops, who arrived as products of our once-strong colonial power. I am relieved to live in a time when governments of range countries, in many cases, at least own their ex situ specimens on paper.
@ ParrotsAndrew - I get the nostalgia for a different time, I really do...in some ways the zoo industry as a whole was more honest back then, the purpose of a zoo was for people to marvel at, and therefore connect with, weird and wonderful life forms they may never have encountered before, or be likely to see anywhere else. Todays 'conservation theatre', and new exhibits needing to earn their marketing value through being 'cute' or identifiable in some other way (ie family structure, courtship), rather than 'of the other', fierce, unknown, or impressive, could be seen as a slightly bewildering state of affairs. I worked in a collection for a while where efforts were made not to dramatise the exhibits or make them appear fantastic or scary, in order for young children to relate to them (as opposed to exhibiting large or dangerous animals above eye level or in pits), yet in some ways that collection pioneered the fetishization of 'relatable cuteness' that we now see so often in the number of lemur, meerkat, penguin, and otter exhibits that appear everywhere.
I think for this reason, I still hold places like Howletts and Port Lympne in high regard....because their ethos is still fairly clear (although economy has started to erode that for the majority of the public IMO).
I also get your romanticism of the Welsh Mountain Zoo. For someone who clearly appreciates zoo history, this is one of the few remaining under-developed sites still open to the public. Of course new exhibits have appeared, but it is very much a 'zoo', with many older structures still standing. However, I disagree that those structures still need to house their original occupants. Someone mentioned Glasgow....the way they appropriated the polar bear exhibit for ocelots was, in my mind, genius, and the lush planting really made something out of a space no longer suitable for mentally-sound ursids. Had they bulldozed the pit, and put up a wood and glass exhibit, I think it would have been a shame.
I love zoo history, I love when older buildings are brought back to life, I think you should be excited about the changes at Dudley, given your nostalgia for eras past. However, we are no longer an authentic colonial power, nor should we be, and so it will never again be possible to plunder and destroy resources in other countries of the empire quite like we used to. Modern zoos are a hangover of those times, indeed today there are still a few elderly primates and elephants, set against carefully themed exhibit backdrops, who arrived as products of our once-strong colonial power. I am relieved to live in a time when governments of range countries, in many cases, at least own their ex situ specimens on paper.