ZSL London Zoo ZSL London Zoo News 2014

[pipaluk]

I apologise if this post is long or in fact repeats what others have said, but writing a post that I feel pulled to and watching Bayern Munich is not the easiest thing to do.

my first visit to London Zoo was I think back in 1996 and of course it was full of 'big name' animals. Elephant's, Rhino's, Gorillas, Chimps, Leopards etc. what became clear to me over the years is that although it was great seeing so many animals, species such as the Elephants and Rhinos really were not suited to the site. yes its historic to keep them at London zoo, but as much as I love zoo history, especially London and whipsnade's, I much prefer these animals to have been moved to better suited collections.

My last three visits to London Zoo have been different experiences. the first in early 2008 was disappointing, it was a grey day, very damp and cold and the zoo looked sadly worn down. a few weeks later I went back (for a school project) and with the sun out, the zoo looked better but still a bit rough around the edges. Late spring last year I went and was really pleased to see the collection look in a much better state. Fresh paint, great new tiger and penguin enclosures looked great and there was a much better feel about the place. yet sadly the Lion area still looked worn (which I will get too in a second). The zoo may have had less animals then my first visit, but for me seeing less animals in bigger better enclosures is much better then seeing loads of animals in small, old enclosures.

i have read a lot about the new lion plans and read a lot of comments on this site and I personally feel some have missed the point. in this day and age, especially in the UK, zoo's must do all they can to pull in visitors. as much as we would love, and im sure they would as well, it is not always possible to show rare and exciting creatures. too the man/woman on the street a Meerkat is more of a crowd puller then lets say a Takin or a Aardwolf. my point being, for a zoo of London zoo's size, making sure they keep as many 'big name' animals as possible is crucial. Gorilla's, Tiger's and Lion's are endangered but also crowd pullers.

for me personally the new lion plans look fantastic, we can all agree that the current lion area is below standards and as sad as i will be to see a historic part of the zoo go, if it means better space for the lions im all for it. the idea of a temple could either be great or tacky but i will withhold judgment until the exhibit is open.

I would love London zoo to go back to its glory days but the sad fact is that it is just not big enough for loads of species. the new lion enclosure is needed, a great plan and will help the zoo move into the future.

I hope i have not offended anyone, or come across as being rude, its just my personal view on it. Also apologies for my spelling and grammar but having learning difficulties, trying to type and watching football is not the easiest thing to do!

I don't want to see London lose its 'crowd pullers' either & i understand the need for better public friendly emclosures. I just don't like it being at the expense of other species when there are other unused areas available. I don't like animal space being taken up by gimmicks such as mock villages or temples.
The keeping of the obscure carnivores shouldn't just be left to Hamerton, Exmoor , RSCC etc who put London's collection to shame!

 

[ajmcwhipsnade]

I don't want to see London lose its 'crowd pullers' either & i understand the need for better public friendly emclosures. I just don't like it being at the expense of other species when there are other unused areas available. I don't like animal space being taken up by gimmicks such as mock villages or temples.
The keeping of the obscure carnivores shouldn't just be left to Hamerton, Exmoor , RSCC etc who put London's collection to shame!

I understand that point, but the fact there is open space, with lawns etc i think makes the place look better in my personal view. don't get me wrong i like zoo's that have a lot of animals, im a massive fan of Colchester and its layout but a zoo needs to keep its identity. plus i don't think it puts London zoo to shame at all by not having obscure species, for some people its there only chance to see some species. it may not be the most exciting but last time i went i found the Water Rats fascinating, and i had never seen them before.

in my opinion as long as the animals have the best available enclosures it doesn't bother me what a zoo has. i want to see animals in great enclosures.

 

[pipaluk]

I understand that point, but the fact there is open space, with lawns etc i think makes the place look better in my personal view. don't get me wrong i like zoo's that have a lot of animals, im a massive fan of Colchester and its layout but a zoo needs to keep its identity. plus i don't think it puts London zoo to shame at all by not having obscure species, for some people its there only chance to see some species. it may not be the most exciting but last time i went i found the Water Rats fascinating, and i had never seen them before.

in my opinion as long as the animals have the best available enclosures it doesn't bother me what a zoo has. i want to see animals in great enclosures.

That's fair enough and plenty will agree, but how anyone can claim London to be a top 5 zoo, with a hoofstock collection that would just about make the top 20(understandable maybe) & a carnivore collection that struggles to make top 30(bewildering) ,is totally beyond me!
It is still relatively strong on primates (for now), has a good aquarium & reptile house, but apart from that....

 

[oflory]

That's fair enough and plenty will agree, but how anyone can claim London to be a top 5 zoo, with a hoofstock collection that would just about make the top 20(understandable maybe) & a carnivore collection that struggles to make top 30(bewildering) ,is totally beyond me!
It is still relatively strong on primates (for now), has a good aquarium & reptile house, but apart from that....

I'd argue that it's a bit harsh to judge London/Bristol by the same standards as places that have a lot of space like Chester . Is it not fair to say that small urban zoos have a different set of priorities? Not a rhetorical question, genuinely curious to know what people think!

 

[ajmcwhipsnade]

That's fair enough and plenty will agree, but how anyone can claim London to be a top 5 zoo, with a hoofstock collection that would just about make the top 20(understandable maybe) & a carnivore collection that struggles to make top 30(bewildering) ,is totally beyond me!
It is still relatively strong on primates (for now), has a good aquarium & reptile house, but apart from that....

I don't want to sound like im being awkward but it is one of my top zoo's, but maybe im sentimental. I agree other zoo's have bigger collections but I still feel it has a lot to offer as a zoo. One of its main problems is space, it is not a large site and it has a lot of buildings that are listed. I guess a part of me is sticking up for the zoo, but I wouldn't be unless I felt strongly about it still being a good zoo.

hopefully my views are seen as opinion and not being awkward!

 

[ajmcwhipsnade]

I'd argue that it's a bit harsh to judge London/Bristol by the same standards as places that have a lot of space like Chester . Is it not fair to say that small urban zoos have a different set of priorities? Not a rhetorical question, genuinely curious to know what people think!

I agree with this, a zoo such as chester that has a whole side dedicated to large paddocks does have an advantage over urban zoo's. for me its what the zoo does with the space and the quality of enclosures.

 

[pipaluk]

I'd argue that it's a bit harsh to judge London/Bristol by the same standards as places that have a lot of space like Chester . Is it not fair to say that small urban zoos have a different set of priorities? Not a rhetorical question, genuinely curious to know what people think!

I don't disagree that it's perhaps a bit harsh, but 30 years ago London was probably still the best zoo in the country. I know today's requirements dictate it could never remain that, but it's 3 times larger than Bristol & barely any better, let alone 3 times better!

 

[ajmcwhipsnade]

I don't disagree that it's perhaps a bit harsh, but 30 years ago London was probably still the best zoo in the country. I know today's requirements dictate it could never remain that, but it's 3 times larger than Bristol & barely any better, let alone 3 times better!

Out of interest do you feel Bristol zoo is better then London? I have only been to Bristol once and enjoyed it but I feel that London is better in my opinion. Bristol has (if I am right), lost a few of its big name species over the years? for the size it is, I think Bristol is impressive but I feel London zoo has more to offer, plus its a better day out in terms of time to wander around.

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

@communityzoo, for what it is worth, here is the situation in India: in Sakkarbaug Zoo ALONE there are sitting upwards from 60 lions - rescuees from Gir Forest - with no opportunity to breed. The zoo does now provide 4-6 lions per year to other zoos within India, but it is yet a trickle. Other zoos like Hyderabad Zoo and Rajkot Zoo are more cooperative by nature. I could vouch similarly for the Mysore Zoo which has an international outlook.

It is THEREFORE not correct to suggest that before long you need to stick on African lions on the terraces. It is a question of going time and time again after the CZA and the WII to persuade them that to provide some 10-20 unrelated founder stock of Asiatic lions to European zoos as part of their EEP / a WAZA global program makes PERFECT sense.

It is thus more a question of an individual studbook keeper being up to the task of actually going through all the motions, the bureaucracy, the paperwork and veterinary testing to make it happen. The species in Europe thus needs a species champion ONLY.

That ZSL Regent's Park now makes a point of building this larger Asiatic lion complex right in the middle of London and writing within its brief up to 12 lions … along with in situ conservation work is to be applauded.

The suggestion of a racist slant over the way the temple complex has made its way into the design plans seems to me somewhat over-the-top and far-fetched. It is as if we cannot have healthy and constructive criticism of the challenges faced in order to conserve a still critically endangered taxon and iconic to that … It is timely and exact to demonstrate what threats the species is under, both by encroachment upon its last stronghold and habitat loss in general. In this people have played their part and continue to do so. The challenge is to find the right solutions to the threat issues in hand, both taking into account the needs of the wildlife, the people and protected habitats. In this whole matter the record of India on the environment and the state of its wildlife and protected areas underlines what challenges India must face in the future. Easy answers are not to be had … and that people will have to take a step back - as they will have to do here in the Netherlands and the UK - in order to have a sustainable, tenable and survivable future for all is paramount.

 

[pipaluk]

Out of interest do you feel Bristol zoo is better then London? I have only been to Bristol once and enjoyed it but I feel that London is better in my opinion. Bristol has (if I am right), lost a few of its big name species over the years? for the size it is, I think Bristol is impressive but I feel London zoo has more to offer, plus its a better day out in terms of time to wander around.

No, i don't think Bristol is better, sorry, i thought i made that clear. I do feel that Bristol's decline in collection somehow feels less obvious than London's & it probably makes better use of its 12 acres than London does with its available space.

 

[ajmcwhipsnade]

No, i don't think Bristol is better, sorry, i thought i made that clear. I do feel that Bristol's decline in collection somehow feels less obvious than London's & it probably makes better use of its 12 acres than London does with its available space.

sorry didn't mean to misunderstand your point. I think any zoo that is around 12 acres and in a urban setting has a massive disadvantage. in terms of the available space, I guess the zoo wants to create a pleasant place for visitors to spend the day, and a zoo with places to have picnics etc will go down well with the 'average' zoo visitor.

I also feel the term decline is perhaps slightly harsh, in my opinion its more about moving with the times then decline. for the 'average' zoo visitor, they don't want to see 'cages' as that is not acceptable. I also feel that down to things like the born free foundation etc who have a downer on zoos, a urban zoo is going to get criticised just for being 'small' and in a city. hope that makes sense, I know this is not the place to air my views on born free etc.

 

[pipaluk]

I don't want to sound like im being awkward but it is one of my top zoo's, but maybe im sentimental. I agree other zoo's have bigger collections but I still feel it has a lot to offer as a zoo. One of its main problems is space, it is not a large site and it has a lot of buildings that are listed. I guess a part of me is sticking up for the zoo, but I wouldn't be unless I felt strongly about it still being a good zoo.

hopefully my views are seen as opinion and not being awkward!

You're not being awkward, i'm the one in the minority! I still like London Zoo, but probably largely for sentimental reasons and i just don't see it as so good , having been to plenty of places i now consider better.

 

[gentle lemur]

The suggestion of a racist slant over the way the temple complex has made its way into the design plans seems to me somewhat over-the-top and far-fetched.

I am not suggesting that the plan for a fake temple is racist, but I am sure it is insensitive and old-fashioned. Hediger wrote about this in 'Mensch und Tier im Zoo' ('Man and Animal in the Zoo') 50 years ago - because when he was the Director of Basle Zoo, circa 1950, he had a complaint from a Moslem visitor because the old elephant house resembled a mosque. It was bad practice in 1950 and it is inexcusable now.

Alan

 

[ajmcwhipsnade]

You're not being awkward, i'm the one in the minority! I still like London Zoo, but probably largely for sentimental reasons and i just don't see it as so good , having been to plenty of places i now consider better.

I think I should point out that it is not my number one fave zoo. Whipsnade and Colchester are easily ahead, but I still feel very strongly about London zoo.

 

[pipaluk]

I think I should point out that it is not my number one fave zoo. Whipsnade and Colchester are easily ahead, but I still feel very strongly about London zoo.

That's something we agree on then!

 

[IanRRobinson]

One very interesting feature of the masterplan for the lion exhibit was an illustration of how much of the Zoo's site was devoted to actual animal exhibits - 30% from memory. That's just under eleven acres. This rather spectacularly confirms pipaluk's comment about space usage on the Regent's Park site.

I think an expanded facility that can house more Asiatic Lions is a very good idea, but why not do it at Whipsnade? Not only would this avoid the waste and expense of demolishing perfectly sound buildings,it would be eminently easy to do this in the vicinity of Round Close, overlooking Nilgai, Chital and Blackbuck. The African Lions at Whipsnade are generic animals that serve no purpose other than to talk about ZSL's work with carnivore conservation in Tanzania. This is admirable, but Cheetahs are already kept at Whipsnade and African Wild Dogs could/should be.

A bachelor group of Asiatic Lions , or a pair (does anyone else think that lions seem perfectly happy in a smallish group or even on their own?) could be kept at London - and if expensive plans to keep Gorillas on the Mappin Terraces were under consideration not that long ago, I find it hard to imagine that an acceptable scheme for lions couldn't be implemented.

Further species loss at London really won't do. It charges very high prices already, and as an Essex native I am very aware that Colchester will soon be seen as the day to take the family for a day to see a big collection in the south-east - if it isn't already.

 

[pipaluk]

Ian, as a current Essex resident living roughly equidistant between the 2, I can assure you that Colchester is the place everyone has been opting for over the last 10 years! Thanks for the information, the 30% usage says it all really.

 

[oflory]

Ian, as a current Essex resident living roughly equidistant between the 2, I can assure you that Colchester is the place everyone has been opting for over the last 10 years! Thanks for the information, the 30% usage says it all really.

I do think it's important to factor in the 'Londoners', most of whom would never dream of going outside Zone 4 for a family day out...

 

[pipaluk]

I do think it's important to factor in the 'Londoners', most of whom would never dream of going outside Zone 4 for a family day out...

That's not really the point. I've stated before that London should always get high visitor numbers due to location. The point is that previously it was THE zoo for people living in a very wide radius, but as other zoos have grown, Colchester in particular, now people have options, they don't choose London!

 

[Pertinax]

I am not suggesting that the plan for a fake temple is racist, but I am sure it is insensitive and old-fashioned.

Lets hope if they do build it, that its more effective or useful(?) than the Fake tree in the Gorilla enclosure...