Whether or not ZSL has "made a mistake" is a wholly subjective opinion. The opinion that it has done so is valid, of course - but it is only an opinion. Other opinions are available.
I accept that many of the opinions on Zoo Chat are subjective. That is why I said that London Zoo may have made a mistake. As Ian Robinson says, “It is not a mark of weakness to admit that a project isn't working, even if it's a flagship”. I doubt if any Zoo Chatters have never made mistakes, but when a large organisation fails to achieve what it wants, despite putting a lot of effort and money into its plans, I think (sorry, I'm being subjective again) that it should look back over the situation and decide if the goal is worth achieving. As Sooty Mangabey says, there are other options available. For example, does London Zoo need to keep gorillas and Sumatran tigers?
Really? Again, it's a subjective opinion - but would a range of small cat exhibits really give the average zoo visitor the experience he or she seeks? How many young children are desperate to see an ocelot? How many cuddly Pallas's cats are on sale in the average toy shop? And are small cats such a great exhibit? .
.
This is a very subjective opinion, Sooty Mangabey, and it makes an assumption that there is an average zoo visitor and that all average zoo visitors are seeking the same experience. If my experience in London Zoo's Information Kiosk is anything to go by, many visitors would want to see elephants back in the Casson Pavillion and would want to see giant pandas and probably polar bears as well. I've been impressed by the range of toy animals that are now available to people. I visited a toy shop in St Albans and saw a toy bilby and a toy ring-tailed mongoose. I can't say how many got sold, but if a shop can sell a toy bilby, I think there is some scope for a toy Pallas's cat.
As regards small cat exhibits, I used to like the collection of small cats at Chester Zoo and Arizona Docent listed 5 species of small cats (marbled cat, Borenan bay cat, African golden cat, guigna and Andean cat) as the animals he/she most wants to see. The term 'great exhibit' is subjective as different Zoo Chatters have visited the same zoo exhibits and some have considered the exhibits to be great, while others have considered them mediocre. Several years ago, London Zoo won an award for its dwarf mongoose exhibit, so there is a potential for an award-winning small cat exhibit.
A little melodramatic - and rather unfair on ZSL, I'd say. Yes, they could give up - but it would be fairly weak of them to do so, would it not? And what would such giving up do to the London 'brand' in the eyes of the world? It will, eventually, come good for the zoo and its gorillas. Even without breeding having kicked in yet, it's an area of the zoo that works well for the majority of visitors; when the gorillas are outside, they offer a superb view. I'm puzzled as to why so much vitriol is delivered against this exhibit, when Bristol receives no such criticism. .
Once again, London Zoo has given up on hundreds of species during its existence. It gave up on orang-utans, despite having the best breeding record in the world, for them. It no longer breeds giraffes, although it also was the best zoo for this. It had the only Leadbeater's possums outside Europe. It gave up on Chinese alligators due to their poor breeding record. "It will, eventually, come good for the zoo and its gorillas". Sooty Mangabey, you have been criticising me for making subjective comments - but how can you say such a thing? How do you know that it will come good for the gorillas? Over the past 20 years, London has got rid of its orang-utans and got rid of its young chimpanzees (and the older ones). This has all been done to promote gorillas and the result - 1 baby that is now dead and 4 dead adults. I don't know what's gone wrong and I'm not saying about Bristol Zoo's gorillas, as I can't make a valid comparison, but Chessington, Port Lympne and Howletts are near London and have far better breeding records for gorillas than London Zoo has. As regards overall species, I would say that London Zoo trumps the other 'local' zoos for breeding animals, but it's poor with gorillas. Surely the view would be more or less the same if gorillas were replaced with other animals.
I’m glad that we agree about having a big collection, full of non EEP species, exhibited by people who find, say, a jackal inherently fascinating for what it is, rather than for its rarity. I also suspect that the down-sizing of the mammal collection will continue under the current regime. I’m just glad that there are zoos where I can see species for the first time without having to travel long distances.
but is it not because there was so little focus on the commercial side of things in the past - almost as if it were slightly vulgar to be interested in such matters - that the zoo fell into the puddle of mud from which it has taken 20 years to extricate itself?
Is London Zoo perfect? No, not at all. Is it the best in the UK? Almost certainly not. Is the collection one to set the pulses racing? Not really. But is the zoo getting better, with improved exhibitry and a better visitor experience? I'd say so. The developments of the past decade have been mostly good to excellent. When we think what could have happened to the zoo, I think we should be glad for that. But, as I said above, other opinions are available.
I accept your views about change. I’ve been on a change management course at a time when my manager was more averse to change than her staff. This doesn’t mean that the managers are right and the staff members are wrong. Both sides need to be listened to. In fact, during this discussion, I have been advocating change, noting that faults have been made and expressing my doubts about whether an experiment that has failed for 20 years should be continued. Surely that is one of the main reasons to introduce change into any system.
As Ian Robinson has said, he and I were around 20 years ago when the zoo was threatened with closure and I’ve already mentioned Andy Grant’s presentation about raising tens of millions of pounds without any idea about where the money would come from. At least the current regime is more realistic financially. The original estimate for the new tiger enclosure was £5-10 million. The zoo does look better now than it did 20 years ago, but the collection is less interesting. This is not to say that there are no interesting animals. I like the beaver rats, Panay cloud runners, aquatic caecilians and the bearded barbets, to name a few, but I remember the times when I could go into the Clore and see and see a species of mammal I had never seen before, but I think the last one was the Panay cloud runner. I also feel that the aye-ayes should be on display – it is several years since I saw them in the Round House and it is a shame that a large percentage of the ground floor is out of bounds to visitors.
Of course the zoo needs money to improve, but it shouldn’t be asking people for millions of pounds on a pretext that the money will save Sumatran tigers. A few years ago, I had a phone call about the RSPB. The caller said that it had obtained rain forest in Sumatra to save tigers, orang-utans etc. I joined the RSPB and am still a member; as an aside, the RSPB reserve near Rye House has water buffalo. £3 million could have been used to achieve far more than a tiger enclosure and I’m sad that the appeal wasn’t for something more important, but I’m afraid that’s another subjective statement.
I’m pleased that Tarzan is enjoying the debate. I think it’s useful to discuss things and I tend to learn a lot by hearing opposing views, but this doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them, no they with
Plus finding him another home would be difficult anyway. Either his 'middle' brother Alf/Sekani (provide he is normal)or ex Twycross Matadi (who is distantly related to Mjuku) or a Howletts 8 year old, could be added with relatively little major disturbance and this set-up would be good at least for a few years.
