ZSL London Zoo ZSL London Zoo News 2012
- Thread starter volvox
- Start date
As someone who grew up with London as their first zoo experience throughout the 70s-80s, it pains me to say it but London zoo , particularly its mammal collection is second rate even in the UK, small town zoos, how about Colchester, which has gone from strength to strength, since London's decline began in the mid 80s with the closure of the mappins. I live roughly equidistant from Colchester, London & Whipsnade, but find London visits pretty depressing & never visit more than once year in winter! & i'm a ZSL member! Apart from Gorilla,Okapi & Malyan Tapir, what doe London have in terms of mammals that Colchester doesn't? Turn the question around & its embarrassing! London barely makes the top 10 in the UK for its mammal collection!
prt
prt
@jurek I don't agree at all, I think most of their exhibits are at least good with very few below that, although not many are exceptional. I am actually a London zoo fan
@pertinax Maybe happy was the wrong word, settled is better. I wasn't suggesting this situation is desirable long term but given all the upheaval the group has been through a period of stability before changing again isn't a terrible idea.
@pertinax Maybe happy was the wrong word, settled is better. I wasn't suggesting this situation is desirable long term but given all the upheaval the group has been through a period of stability before changing again isn't a terrible idea.
Slender Loris, Naked Mole Rats, Potto, Diana Monkey, Australian Water Rats, Seba's Bat, Brush-tailed Porcupine, Alaotran Gentle Lemur, Armadillo (Big Hairy?), Malagasay Jumping Rat, Panay Cloud Rat, Cotton-topped Tamarins, White-naped Manabey, Francois Langur, Serval, Bearded Pig, Bactrian Camel and probably a fair few others I've not mentioned. Not all ABC's, granted, but there's a fair few of those there that hardly anywhere else in the UK have got.
I think the you're a "glass half-empty" kind of person, whereas I prefer to see it as half full.
The above is not a criticism of Colchester (I love the place and make a 2-day visit, staying over in the area, pretty much annually) but you're not comparing like with like. Colchester doesn't have the best reptile house in the UK or the best aquarium in a UK zoo but it has other strengths. London does have those things, and other strengths, but lacks in other areas -they're both great UK zoos.
Last edited:
Thnks for the reply Shorts, I knew I would be hit with that, but also know that I could respond with a far more impressive list (certainly as far as joe public are concerned!) e.g leopard or cheetah v serval etc but I wont list them all! The fact remains that given its location , Colchester is far exceeding London in terms of visitors V population catchment,very few people I know that are non zoo people have bothered returning to London, but they all make at least 1 visit to Colchester per year. I dont want to turn this into Colchester V London argument, I prefer Whipsnade to either anyway!
I dont believe London can afford to lose its tigers, but would question whether quite so much needs to be spent on one exhibit.
I dont believe London can afford to lose its tigers, but would question whether quite so much needs to be spent on one exhibit.
True that. I can see if Joe Public was equidistant they'd probably choose Colchester everytime (and the traffic would be easier and the visit cheaper). As a "zoo person" Colchester is possibly my favourite UK zoo (though I reserve the right to change this with the day of the week
) but I also very greatly enjoy and get different things from London (reptiles, small mammals, birds) and again from Whipsnade (big and obscure mammals). I'd agree that Colchester punches above it's weight and London has in recent history punched below (though I think it's starting to pull together fairly well now). I'm not sure London could easily handle many more visitors given its relatively small size so I think that retaining current visitor numbers and gradually consolidating/improving what they've got is ultimately pretty good and desirable for the future.
Again, I agree, they need the Tigers and (ideally) they wouldn't spend what they're likely to do so, but then again (as mentioned before on this thread) a certain "wow" factor is required to continue generating good word of mouth and maintain/retain those valuable visitor numbers. Maybe they should talk to the Isle of Wight Zoo which has done some pretty good looking Tiger enclosures (though smaller than what I think London would do) on what I presume is a modest budget. Now I think of it they really should do this.
Absolutely, I do, but zoo-nerds (myself included) will debate strengths, weaknesses, and preferences until doomsday.
I went last summer and they could do with a lot more glass viewing areas but I imagine the more recently built enclosures are the ones with better viewing?
To be fair even the newer ones could do with a few more glass viewing areas. This would probably not be a major problem for them given their relatively small visitor numbers but it would be for London -London could always add a water moat at London which would give good viewing to large numbers. The themeing and landscaping of the newer Isle of Wight enclosures is great though.
I agree.
I think there'll be good viewing areas at London even without more water though.
Personally I'd love to see underwater viewing which was originally in a concept design but I imagine they choose not to do that because of cost!
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
I say this with some trepidation, given previous suggestions of excessive negativity, but London is hitting below its weight with its annual attendance.
A look at population figures for European cities shows just how big London is :-[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe]List of metropolitan areas in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Now, look at the 2010 annual attendance figures that snowleopard helpfully collated just before Christmas:-http://www.zoochat.com/9/annual-attendance-top-30-european-zoos-251028/
And, sorry, shorts, I don't know how old you are, and when you first started visiting London, but I have clear memories going back to the mid '70s, when the site was getting 1.6 million visitors a year. A football club, to use sooty's unattractive analogy (suggesting as it does the zoo should settle for a place as a perpetual also-ran), that had lost three eighths of its average attendance figure over that time would be a club that had serious levels of supporter discontent.
A city of London's size, sited in Europe's financial centre, ought to be doing better and aiming higher, given that it is the flagship of such a prestigious organisation as ZSL.
A look at population figures for European cities shows just how big London is :-[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe]List of metropolitan areas in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Now, look at the 2010 annual attendance figures that snowleopard helpfully collated just before Christmas:-http://www.zoochat.com/9/annual-attendance-top-30-european-zoos-251028/
And, sorry, shorts, I don't know how old you are, and when you first started visiting London, but I have clear memories going back to the mid '70s, when the site was getting 1.6 million visitors a year. A football club, to use sooty's unattractive analogy (suggesting as it does the zoo should settle for a place as a perpetual also-ran), that had lost three eighths of its average attendance figure over that time would be a club that had serious levels of supporter discontent.
A city of London's size, sited in Europe's financial centre, ought to be doing better and aiming higher, given that it is the flagship of such a prestigious organisation as ZSL.
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
I suspect about 1.5 million.
Whipsnade's attendance figures haven't varied much in years - between 400,000 and 500,000. In 1976 it had 450,000 (from Anthony Smith's "Animals on View"), in 2010 428,684 (from ZSL Treasurer's Report and Financial Statements for 2011).
Whipsnade's peak attendance was 750,000 in 1961. The M1 had just been opened (1959), and Woburn Safari Park wasn't opened until 1969. It's a huge pity that ZSL didn't put more of its resources into Whipsnade in that period.
Whipsnade's attendance figures haven't varied much in years - between 400,000 and 500,000. In 1976 it had 450,000 (from Anthony Smith's "Animals on View"), in 2010 428,684 (from ZSL Treasurer's Report and Financial Statements for 2011).
Whipsnade's peak attendance was 750,000 in 1961. The M1 had just been opened (1959), and Woburn Safari Park wasn't opened until 1969. It's a huge pity that ZSL didn't put more of its resources into Whipsnade in that period.
Isn't that precisely what it is doing with the new high-profile tiger enclosure which will meet visitor expectations of a capital city zoo?
Couldn't agree more.
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
Suggestions of excessive negativity? I am not suggesting at all you are negative in your opinions of London Zoo, I am telling you that you are negative in your views, in fact very negative as I cannot recall anything you have posted at all regarding London Zoo developments which could be described as positive, you would much prefer to reminisce what was on the cattle sheds circa 1968. I understand that you have worked at Regents Park in a volunteer capacity and you are also a fellow of the society, well I am not surprised that London Zoo found themselves almost up the creek without a paddle twenty years ago if they had people with similar attitudes on the books, indeed it causes me to wonder if you have the correct attitude to be a fellow of the society, as all you appear to want to do is ridicule any recent improvements made and compare this with what would have happened forty years ago.
Oh dear, it's deja vu time
, per (my) post #60 on this debate:"I think the reality is that people in the UK were visiting pretty much all zoos less during this period -since the mid-1970's (as evidenced by the large number of zoos that closed over the timescale mentioned). This was probably due to a number of factors, the anti-zoo lobby probably had some impact, and leisure options for families became far more varied and easily affordable (theme parks, video films, video games, cheap foreign travel, etc.)"
I agree London is not what it was (i.e. financially unsustainable) but to continue with your football analogy...... Leeds United* were the big mid-1970's team, their attendances today are considerably less than they were then, between then and now they've been down to the third English division and faced administration, nowadays (all things considered) a lot of their fans are reasonably content with where they are now (still around and in a stable situation compared with where they have been in the last ten years) although I accept there will still be quite a few that bemoan the fact that they're not what they used to be and continue to insist they should be challenging the Manchester teams for the Premiership (even though situations and finances have changed in the interim) -I am like the former fan with regards to London, you are like the latter -thankfully it'll still be around in the future (in continuing good health in my opinion) for both of us to keep supporting.
*apologies to any Leeds fans for any subtleties I've overlooked or mistakes I've made with my broad analogy