Three questions Ian:
1. Is the sealion building listed?
2. Wasn't the original plan to have the main entrance down near the hippo ponds? If so, why was this never followed through?
ZSL Whipsnade Zoo Whipsnade Zoo 2014 #1
- Thread starter BongoHardwood
- Start date
Three questions Ian:
1. Is the sealion building listed?
2. Wasn't the original plan to have the main entrance down near the hippo ponds? If so, why was this never followed through?
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
As far as I know, the Water Mammals building isn't listed. I would have thought that converting it for penguins ought to be cheaper than making the pool big enough for sealions, in any case!
And the entrance: yes, the path by the hippos is called Sir Peter's Way for a reason - Chalmers Mitchell's idea was that the road would stretch all the way down to Dagnall, where visitors would enter. I would suggest that World War II was probably the reason why it didn't happen, although the failure of the railway company (LMS) to build a spur onto the man line to Dagnall cannot have helped.
At any rate, bringing that land into some form of use for animal exhibits really ought to be treated as a priority for development capital, IMVHO!!
The latest Animal Inventory is online - it notes that as of 01/01/2014 there were 5,0 Impala held. Of course, we do not know for sure how many are present now but it gives us a rough idea.
Its funny that just the other day I was thinking that Whipsnade needs a brand new entrance area. I drive past the entrance regularly and I do feel that a better first impression is needed. Who knows a better entrance complex could include a better shop and another eating area that could increase revenue!
I don't want to get dragged into another discussion about the existing site etc, but having a look at google maps I get the impression there is not as much space as everyone thinks. from knowing the area, there is a huge golf course behind the zoo and the paddock behind the hippos may belong to the zoo but I can trace it back to what appears to be a farm/house. Plus again the big problem would be planning permission, I really do doubt anything could be built within the eyeline looking up from the vale.
I hope I don't sound like I'm being awkward, I just think these are valid points that need to be heard.
I don't want to get dragged into another discussion about the existing site etc, but having a look at google maps I get the impression there is not as much space as everyone thinks. from knowing the area, there is a huge golf course behind the zoo and the paddock behind the hippos may belong to the zoo but I can trace it back to what appears to be a farm/house. Plus again the big problem would be planning permission, I really do doubt anything could be built within the eyeline looking up from the vale.
I hope I don't sound like I'm being awkward, I just think these are valid points that need to be heard.
There were still 5 on my last 2 visits, the most recent on 20/4/14
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
Well, let's look at the map on this site. ZSL Whipsnade Zoo Satellite Map
Looking at that , there is quite plainly a large amount of space at the foot of Sir Peter's Way. The figure of 100 acres was given to me well over 20 years ago by a hippo keeper (sorry, name unknown)who was an experienced member of staff.
However, do compare the size of the paddock at the foot of Sir Peter's Way on the Cheetah side with the size of Spicers' Paddock (the White Rhino/Roan/Sitatunga paddock). That is well known to be at least 40 acres (Lucy Pendar's "Whipsnade: My Africa" describes the latter as being bigger than London Zoo (36 acres), and she would have been told this by people who knew what they were talking about). Once you accept that there must be 30+ acres behind the hippos, then I would humbly suggest 100 acres is quite feasible.
I am only thinking in terms of paddocks for antelope and (maybe) a resiting of "Wild Whipsnade" (surely much more convincing without the traffic heading up Duke's Avenue, and with the additional effectiveness of "Little Stonehenge" as a backdrop), with perhaps a lake at the foot of the valley (there is obviously a drainage issue, and a lake fringed with reeds would help. The local Wildlife Trust would be pleased with that, too).
Intelligently done, this would both give scope to bring in new species directly, and free up space in the centre of the park for others.
Surely to goodness none of this would cause planning issues? If we go looking for difficulties in life, they are very easy to find.
Last edited:
On a side note, I don't think her name is right (I love the book, but I believe the girl you name is a model).
the area you talk of is very visible from down in the vale, I honestly think it would be impossible to develop something massive there. I know you say paddocks but still it would be so difficult to do anything there.
I don't want to get on the wrong side of anyone or come across as being awkward but I would like the discussion to remain positive and constructive. Basically I love Whipsnade and feel that what you have should come first in terms of spending etc.
Lucy PENDAR is the author of the Whipsnade book.
ajmcwhipsnade I don't want to get on the wrong side of anyone or come across as being awkward but I would like the discussion to remain positive and constructive. Basically I love Whipsnade and feel that what you have should come first in terms of spending etc.[/QUOTE said:
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
There are already Black Fallow Deer there, and Emu (?). So it's not as if we're talking about an area that is unused. It's about using it for some more exotic species. And it bears repetition that this was a key part of the original concept.
Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell was a man who had vision and drive. He took on the post of Secretary of ZSL in 1903 when London Zoo had gone through a long period of stagnation. He oversaw a great deal of development at London (most notably the Mappin Terraces) and drove forward the acquisition of Whipsnade, where his ashes were interred.
I find it hard to imagine that he would be content that nearly 70 years after his death the only animals that can be seen from his final resting place are Bennett's Wallabies and Chinese Water Deer. I suspect that his vision for Whipsnade would encompass a great deal more.
I like to think he would be very proud at how Whipsnade has turned out. it has done fantastic work with the animals it has and abroad. I understand fully the original plans (I know a lot about the zoo) but planning permission regulations would not have been as strict as they are no.
Whipsnade is a brilliant zoo and the quality of life its current species have is fantastic. new species will come, I just don't see why it has to be criticised for 'lack of imagination'. it has no lack of imagination and the improvments it has made over the past 20 years have been great.
I am sure that the zoo has long term plans, but financially It cant do everything it wants. there has to be a degree of sensibility about its spending.
BongoHardwood
Well-Known Member
Male nilgai out with the 4 females today 
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
I can't be the only one who is frankly irritated by the suggestion that those of us wanting to see more done at Whipsnade are a bunch of wild-eyed loons. "A degree of sensibility" would not put building an expensive new lion exhibit at London on top of ZSL's spending programme, it would not have left the Lubetkin Elephant House untouched for twenty years, and it would have built the Indian Rhino house so that all the animals were prepared to use the heated indoor pools.
As has been pointed out -repeatedly- what appears to have governed ZSL spending in recent years has not been financial constraint as much as a conscious decision to concentrate on a few high profile, easily marketed species.
It does seem to be a worrying recent trend that a lot of zoos are going down the generic/formulaic route with their species. Of course you can't go out into the wild and bag yourself a specimen anymore (thank God) but what has happened to variety? The Aspinall parks and Marwell WERE prime examples of this, and now they've joined the club! Having a bunch of non-breeding meerkats will NOT teach people about wider conservation concerns-and visitors (particularly children) aren't stupid, they CRAVE knowledge!
The antelope arrival is definitely a start BUT that's how it should be treated. Plus it only took visitor complaints ("nice zoo, not enough animals and too much empty space") to get these animals into Whipsnade in the first place!
I never called anyone a wild eyed loon, so I'm not sure where you got that impression from. Plus I don't see myself as someone who is above other people's views, I am just commenting from my own personal view point.
I doubt that the ZSL has forgotten it has the Lubetkin Elephant house on its premises. I am sure they have had many discussions about plans but with it being a listed building (and a pretty shabby one at that), I don't see what could be done with it.
A good zoo is not one that crams its site with a million species and has sub-standard enclosures, a good zoo is one that looks after its existing animals in the best possible way. Surely the welfare of its animals is the most important thing about any zoo.
My own view (which is my own) is that there would be a problem with Whipasnade if it did not have good enclosures. There is no major flaws with any of its current exhibits, which means its current animal collection has the best possible care and attention. So what if there is un-developed space (of which too much work would ruin the character of the place), a zoo is not a place to display animals for the fun of it, or be a place that is like a museum for millions of people to look at, it is a place to breed/care for/protect species.
I don't understand how what I've said was insulting, it is just my own views on a issue that is not as big as its being made out to be. I would understand if Whipsnade had 600 acres and was a cruel/dank place with small cages in its wonderful setting but the fact is, in its current guise, its a fantastic place for animals and visitors.
... or would have modified it/done something to redress the problem, instead of just leaving it since it was built.
If even general visitors are noticing 'lack of variety' and 'empty space' then certainly something is wrong here.
There is nothing MAJORLY wrong. They have added a few new species in recent times & lost very little.
I think it's more a question of whether ZSL are happy to stick with the current stable position, or push on to make Whipsnade one of the best 2 or 3 zoos in the country(something that London sadly never can be again, without extending).
What some of us would like to see is that ambition, to allow the place to realise its potential.
I just mentioned on the Nilgai photo in the Gallery- it is a refreshing change to actually see them adding a couple of species now, rather than more subtractions.
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
I just mentioned on the Nilgai photo in the Gallery- it is a refreshing change to actually see them adding a couple of species now, rather than more subtractions.
I really don't want to come across as niggardly, but both Blackbuck and Nilgai are species held at Whipsnade in the very recent past that have been allowed to dwindle away through lack of interest. If you're prepared to go back twenty or so years, the same applies to the apparently impending Thomson's Gazelle.
Blesbok and Impala are also species held in the past, in an era when Whipsnade -again- was starved of capital so that big vanity projects could proceed at London. Thus African antelope at Whipsnade had to cope with shelters that were identical to those for the likes of Bactrian Camels and Yak. Unsurprisingly, they failed to thrive.
ajmc, how many other zoos have you visited? I'd suggest two, both very instructive in their different ways. Shaldon Wildlife Trust in Devon is tiny, and accordingly has had to keep smaller species. It still manages to keep eighteen species of primate, Margay and Owston's Palm Civet. I think its director would give his eye teeth for some of the land left untouched at Whipsnade.
Whipsnade is not a zoo standing on its own; it is part of a community of European zoos, all committed to the care of endangered species. A zoo that leaves that amount of space untenanted is, quite simply, letting others down.
East Berlin, on the other hand, is huge. I am not an enthusiast for much of its carnivore collection's housing, but its ungulates are a joy. Kiang; Persian Fallow, Bactrian and White-lipped Deer; three forms of Takin; Marco Polo's Sheep; Bharal and Markhor are all kept, amongst many others. All are temperate zone species which would cost a pittance to stable and all would benefit from extra holders within EAZA.
As for
; well, Whipsnade is competing (and against tough local competition in the shape of Woburn) for the hard earned money of ordinary people. The standard two child family would pay £81 to get into the park, without a car.
They deserve a few more filled paddocks for that!
Last edited:
ZSL Whipsnade....
A friend in his eighties recently went to Whipsnade, having known it well many years ago. He is writing to them, asking where all the birds are; they have very few on show.
I remember Whipsnade as the most wonderful hoofstock place. It really isn't any more, in spite of a few shining gems like the Elephants and Elk. For some reason, the free range Red Junglefowl have gone, which is a shame.
A friend in his eighties recently went to Whipsnade, having known it well many years ago. He is writing to them, asking where all the birds are; they have very few on show.
I remember Whipsnade as the most wonderful hoofstock place. It really isn't any more, in spite of a few shining gems like the Elephants and Elk. For some reason, the free range Red Junglefowl have gone, which is a shame.