Hi, rather than start a new thread for the same topic I'm going to bump someone elses' review. We visited Whipsnade for the first time last week, I realise a lot of people are very familiar with the park but thought some notes seen through a new pair of eyes might be of interest to a few people:
My initial impression of Whipsnade was surprise at the loudness of the animal collage plastered across the entrance. I’m used to seeing this at London zoo, but it seemed out-of-place here, given the rural setting. I wonder about the value of such facades, whether they attract spontaneous visits by passers-by, or whether they are an inexpensive way of hiding slightly dated entrance buildings.
The omnipresent scattering of visitor vehicles around the site wasn’t something I’m used to, and the layout of roads, lay-bys, a small toilet block, and primate housing gave the impression of entering a country village that just happened to contain a number of animal exhibits. I was surprised at how unkempt the site was, and the extent to which it is, in aesthetic terms, the poor cousin to Regent’s Park. This is by no means a criticism, and I found seeing the relics of decades ago in the enclosures and buildings to be magical.
Given the distinction in ‘finish’ I could now see between the two zoos, the ring-tailed lemur walk-through looked as if ZSL had accidentally delivered a London exhibit to the wrong park. The graphics-covered glass doors, water features and exotic vegetation may well be a sign of things to come, but I did wonder if it wouldn’t have been cheaper and more fitting to have fenced an area of woodland for a more rough-and-ready walk-through experience, especially given the black and whited ruffed lemur pair remain on a wooded island elsewhere in the park, presumably because there was not sufficient space at ‘in with the lemurs’ to mix them with the non-breeding (single-sex) group of ring-tails. I feel as if Whipsnade missed out on a large, multi-species, lemur ‘wood’ for the cost of this exhibit.
What also interested me was that the original elephant moat and hedge seem to have been incorporated into the walk-through lemur enclosure. The Lubetkin Tecton elephant house however was adjacent to, but not part of, the lemur complex and, despite a heritage sign on the back of the house, the windows were completely painted out and the house shut to visitors. Instead of lemurs nearby, I would have liked to have seen the European bison paddocks connected to this very important building, for the bison to use the house as a shelter, and the interior opened to the public.
From the lemurs, we approached the chimpanzees at the back of the exhibit, first seeing them through the heavy-duty fence panels. The island is more than adequate (especially compared to the original cage, still visible but partly covered by large wooden/perspex screens on each corner now), but to me, chimps don't seem suited to Whipsnade, and I wonder if they are essentially in retirement with a view to not being replaced. I actually felt all the primates seemed out of place at the park.
Both primate exhibits are in amongst what is now 'Wild wild Whipsnade', an ‘exhibit’ I found impressive as a choice of species and seeming fitting in the surroundings, but clearly created on a budget. It didn't matter, and was actually quite pleasing, that much of the fencing for wisent, moose and bears is very old (in some cases original). We saw the male moose, and separately the two young calves (which were in the wooded paddock), but no adult cow, which was a little worrying. The three brown bears looked large (do they hibernate here?) but in good condition. One wolverine was partly-visible at the back of the enclosure. It seemed a shame for the mature tree to be off-limits to these animals, and the various upright dead branches staked out around the enclosure seemed unlikely vantage points for them to bother climbing up. However, the enclosure overall for was fantastic. There were no boar to be seen, but the female lynx looked was sat with her kittens in the branches of the fallen tree. The enclosure looked old as if it had previously housed another cat species, but I don't think this is the case? I was impressed with the size of the wolf enclosure. I thought some of the animals looked like timber wolves but the signs all stated the group are European. I really liked this part of the park, and would be interested to see more northerly temperate (as well as tundra) species added.
There were two American bison on bison hill, with prairie dogs visible here, against a spectacular view. The field had been split into two but the gate was open between the two sections. Like other members have mentioned, I thought of musk oxen and polar bears while I was on the hill here. The microclimate of the site is very unique and really useful for a collection in Southern England. The penguin pool was attractive, but really needs to be deeper, however the setting is ideal with the northerly winds on that slope. I saw what looked like an immature rockhopper and an adult, the remainder being 30 or so African penguins, I assume from London. I'm not sure why London felt the need to swap to Humboldts...essentially the African penguins have the same kind of enclosure they had at London, just a cooler climate. I would have liked to have seen the king and gentoo penguins of recent years still here and doing well.
Near to the new overnight lodges, there were around six reindeer, joined by a number of Mara congregating around the feed troughs. Throughout the visit, I found the presence of Mara/Muntjac/Water deer/Wallaby quite bizarre, especially as they are presumably able to wander out of the front entrance quite easily and seemed to be in most of the (non-carnivore) enclosures.
Just past the reindeer, on the other side there was a duckpond with a glass-fronted shed which the person I was with suggested may have housed flamingos in the past.
The white rhinoceros/waterbuck/roan antelope/sitatunga paddock was
really vast, I was more impressed by this (and the onager paddock) than anything else at the park. There were around five rhino, although I know that the current house has held as many as nine in recent years. I particularly like how close the ha-ha moats allow the animals to come, not to mention the back of this reserve where you can walk right up to the antelope yards, and areas where there is a fence but no safety barrier, in a way that you wouldn't find at Marwell or Africa Alive. This was one of the most pleasing aspects about the park.
The greater kudu bull was close to the moat, and an impressive and humbling sight at eye level, and made me appreciate the extent of the ha-ha moats around some of the older paddocks. I think the illusion of having no barrier between you and such large animals, given often their proximity to the path, makes their presence more 'real' - in that you don't see children hurtling towards the barrier in the way they might towards glass or wire. Visitors seemed more respectful, more in awe, as if it was a privilege to be so near to something. In the age of hotwire/hi-tensile fencing, it would be unlikely that the zoo would go to the expense of such uninterrupted views if they had to build the enclosures from scratch today. Nile lechwe were visible behind the kudu paddock, but were also labelled on Asian plains paddock fence alongside the signs for various deer species, camels and blackbuck.
The American flamingo group, while very vivid, seemed on the small side and I wonder if these are the birds previously at London. If so, they are bound to be old now, and I wondered if they have ever bred at Whipsnade. The pond they were in was large, and possibly they have the advantage of being kept separately from other species. Further along, the large waterfowl pond by the café appeared messy and out of place for some reason. A mixture of mainly emperor geese and white storks, I'm not fond of seeing large numbers of flight-restricted birds. I'm surprised this lake hasn't been landscaped into a moat for the gemsbok and zebra.
The hippo house was as good an indoor hippo experience as you're likely to get without filtration. Murals, dusty woodchips and sparse arrangements of unhealthy-looking houseplants did make things worse. Stripped of all these things, the one addition which I think would transform the appearance of the indoor exhibits to visitors would be an open door and the visible choice of being indoors/outdoors for the inhabitants. Shut in as they were, the eye is immediately led to what kind of environment they have available to them, and the 'theming' almost then comes to life as a theatre backdrop for the animal in an eerie (and completely counter-productive) way. The outdoor paddocks were fine, if a little small for the common hippos, but without a state-of-the-art exhibit it’s very difficult for hippos not to make their surroundings look untidy. I wasn't a great fan of pygmy and common hippos kept in adjacent exhibits, and would have liked to have seen the former elsewhere. The hippos are one of the few species I think needs either a huge lake and field OR a very state-of-the-art indoor/outdoor exhibit, but not something in-between.
The sloth bear enclosure was great, with the bears visible in the distance. There were two Japanese cranes in an open-air enclosure before the sloth bears. I saw two bears, likely to be the two London-bred animals rather than the old female (she is held separately?). Having seen the indoor facility, which was far bigger than I'd imagined from seeing photos), I could immediately see how a team looking after these animals would have wanted this for them, rather than to remain on the terraces at London. I was really impressed by this facility. Prezewalski horses occupied the shelter at the end of the sloth bear house and the adjacent paddock, with onagers the other side in a huge field.
'Rhinos of Nepal' - again, I'd expected larger paddocks (the onager paddock would have been perfect size), although the existing ones were completely adequate, but it was seeing one animal confined to the 3 indoor stalls which was periodically rubbing the doors with its horn and vocalising, that made me perceive the exhibit as smaller-than-expected (possibly the bull, who was limping, so I accept there may have been a need to keep this animal in the warmth). One of the calves was confined to a mud yard outside the newer house, and was rubbing its horn against the gates and also vocalizing. A female and sub-adult calf were in the largest paddock, while another apparently pregnant female was in one of the old yards, with access to the smaller paddock in the new complex, though she seemed keen to get inside, staying in the yard the whole time (there was a team of people working in the house, which she may have been responding to). The other yard seemed empty, as did the paddock on the other side of the old house. I suspected the calf being prepared for moving was in the small area along the front of the new house, but the crate was by the empty yard in the old complex, so it may be that the calf was separated from the mother as she was heavily pregnant. In the new house, the indoor pool did appear a steep slope into the water, and the land areas looked fairly small. It’s a shame the pool isn't three separate sections that could be drained individually rather than one which runs through the three stalls. Its also a shame the land areas aren't bigger in here. Again, this modern house is starting to accumulate all the dust and cobwebs of an agricultural barn, and really will never be able to convey any kind of aesthetic other than practical, so as with the hippos, the element of indoor/outdoor choice would change how I saw this space immediately. I accept that it may have been the best option for an animal which is unwell, but an explanatory sign would go a long way here. It also made me think they are lacking an indoor area where there is soft substrate. Is soft substrate used in other GI rhino houses?
We saw 6-7 yak, 4-5 Bactrian camels and 20+ Pere David's Deer were visible in different areas beyond the rhino paddocks. We weren't driving, so didn't enter the Asian plains, however despite its vast size the grass looked very well-grazed (granted, its November), and there were a lot of deer visible in the distance, suggesting it is quite highly-stocked.
I was pleased to see all three gaur alive and well, the adult and juvenile males in the yard, and the female inside, possibly separated (I couldn’t tell). I noticed a gate that could connect the gaur paddock to the old Indian rhino paddock. Does this ever get used?
Elephants - The bull was ringing a bell attached to a chain in a sand yard while two cows and an older calf stood in the corner pf the same yard. They were visible from a vantage point over a fence. We saw no other elephants so I assumed another yard is off-show behind the houses. No elephants were out in the paddocks but may have had access. Again, the main cow paddock looked smaller than I'd imagined but was more than acceptable by today's standards, and there’s clearly a great deal of additional paddock space beyond this.
The cheetah 'moat' seemed a mess of hotwire (I guess following an escape), and it seemed an attempt to do something interesting with an exhibit that would have looked great just with the viewing shelters and the ability for the grass to grow long. The lion exhibit again had a good viewing. The exterior of the house suggested a vast, tall indoor area for the lions (if there was indoor viewing I missed it) - I hope this is the case. The view from over the scimitar-horned oryx paddock where you have the 'illusion' of lions sharing the same space seemed a lot of trouble for the effect it produced, but perhaps regular visitors get a kick from seeing this.
The 'Splash Zone'/Marine Mammal house was one of the most bizarre buildings I've seen for any animal, let alone sea mammals. Climbing the path to look over into the outdoor 'arena', I was shocked to see a pool the size of a small suburban garden swimming pool (although I'm aware its very deep). The height of the indoor building gave it the appearance of a small modern church building, but the interior is again far smaller than I expected, and it was odd to stand in a room with the indoor acoustics of waves slapping over the overflow as six sea lions weaved and bobbed around a small rectangular pool. There was a further holding pool off-show. There was no substrate land area, just the concrete area around the indoor pool. I think my shock at the size came from the knowledge that this exhibit had been constructed for and had once house dolphins. I had wondered if the sea-lions had suffered spending time in London over the winter, after seeing this I felt that they may have had in some respects a better enclosure for a few months (although London's pool lacked the depth admittedly). As much as I’m glad that common/grey seals are no longer kept at any inland sites in the UK, I'd much rather see a naturalistic seal pool on the escarpment rather than the sea lions in this building. These, together with the primates, seemed more suited to Regent’s park.
I found the 'Discovery Centre' to be a strange assortment of small/cold-blooded animals, but not uncommon for open, rural zoos where there is a need for indoor exhibits. The aquaria and reptile exhibits were interesting, I liked the combination of cichlids with dwarf crocodiles and butterflies. The pygmy marmosets and dwarf mongoose both seemed to be present just for the sake of it, when both could have been accommodated in open air (and, for the marmosets, free-ranging) settings elsewhere in the park. With the saki monkeys, even in the absence of a zoogeographic region for them in the park, there are plenty of copses of trees where a fantastic enclosure could be created for them. There was nothing wrong with their existing enclosure however. The turtle breeding centre was a good concept, but I wonder why turtles need confining to barren pre-fab trays because they are in a breeding centre? These trays consisted of a small land area with a ramp into a water area, the whole space maybe 1 metre by
0.5. They were like miniature replicas of the indoor hippo and Indian rhino stalls.
I felt a similar way about the aviary by the restaurant. While it’s nice to see choughs and egrets, the aviary seemed out of place and almost designed as something to look at while in the restaurant. I would have liked to have seen a larger, walk-through flight, possibly able to incorporate the flamingos and storks (unless already pinioned) in a flighted setting.
Red pandas (we saw four) seemed content in a large tree, the enclosure looking almost identical to the one used at London until the early 90s, but in a far better setting, although I would have liked to have seen an area within a stand of several mature trees. It was clear this was a very old enclosure for this species which hadn't needed to be upgraded due to still looking acceptable.
Though not remarkable to see them, the short-clawed otter enclosure had an pleasing quirk in that there was a carpet of pondweed (not algae) growing along the bottom of a very clear moat (accessible to the otters), when I'm used to seeing (and years ago, scrubbing out) barren pools which necessitated maintenance that prevented any kind of planting.
Reticulated giraffes - we saw three adults and a calf, though I’m aware there are four adults. The house looks very worn, but it was fantastic to be centimetres away from the calf due to the double wire barrier, and to be able to appreciate the height of the adults by being on the same level as them. The paddock itself was clearly adequate. I would have expected Whipsnade to have at least planned to combine some of their African paddock space at some point, given how vast the area is, and I would be very happy to see the giraffe benefit from any such development. However, the recurring theme I felt runs through this collection is that the enclosures, though old, still have a great deal of life left in them, given how spacious and ‘naturalistic’ they still appear. I get the same feeling looking through algae and bramble-covered, distorted mesh fencing at Port Lympne, into a snow leopard or wild dog enclosure far better than many newer rockwork and glass exhibits for the same species in other collections.
We caught sight of two red river hogs near the ostrich house (I think), and a bongo opposite the giraffes. I didn't see forest buffalo so assume they no longer hold these. We also didn’t see Darwin’s rheas, but I avoided the children’s farm which I believe they are near to, so perhaps we didn’t pass the right enclosure. I assumed the old (now-closed) bird garden is somewhere between the farm and the discovery centre?
Overall, I was struck by how run-down much of the Whipsnade infrastructure was, but actually found this to be part of its magic. This was not the manicured parkland its vast road system initially suggested (and as I had been expecting), although it looked as if it had been at one time. Given the branding at London of 'getting closer than ever before', I was surprised at how close it is possible to get to many of the larger animals at Whipsnade. At various points around certain enclosures, should the inhabitants decide to come and investigate you, you'd be 'up close' without glass or hotwire in between you and the animal. I’m not suggesting there were any breaches of any kind, however, the zoo clearly has no issues with licensing.
Seeing history in buildings, fences and walls that were still functional and didn't need replacing was a particularly attractive quirk. I found the history evident in the grounds along with the incredible view and sunset to be very special, seeing wolves and waterbuck lit by the last rays of the day, and now understand why some regular posters on this site speak of Whipsnade with great fondness.
speaking to a keeper he said that they were hoping that when the Wolves pass away they could obtain a pack of African Wild Dogs.
