ZSL Whipsnade Zoo ZSL Whipsnade Zoo 2015

[ajmcwhipsnade]

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, because I'm sure your suggestion could be implemented in an excellent way, but I think part of Whipsnade's charm is its park-land feel. The woods and spaces between enclosures are for me a defining feature of the place. If these spaces were replaced with enclosures then it might well be an excellent/better zoo, but I can't help feeling it would lose something else in the process.

That being said, my opinion is based on one visit this year and perhaps you and others remember a larger collection in years gone by. You also make some brilliant points about Black rhino. Whipsnade should absolutely add several 'zoo-flagship' species where captive breeding really could be the difference between extinction and not. Amur leopard etc.

The other thing I'd like to see, and to be honest I think is a necessity, is new housing for the Sea lions and Common hippos.

For me the parkland, open spaces and woods are as you say what make Whipsnade such a great place. I have no idea how many times I have been since I was a child, but enjoying the animals while walking around a place that is a beautiful setting really gives the Zoo a unique feel.

As for the Sea Lions, I would agree it is not the greatest housing for them however they do breed extremely well and they are always very active.

I guess ultimately it is extremely hard to please everyone. The zoo does do great work with what it has and I feel that is the most important thing.

 

[Pertinax]

but I think part of Whipsnade's charm is its park-land feel. The woods and spaces between enclosures are for me a defining feature of the place. If these spaces were replaced with enclosures then it might well be an excellent/better zoo, but I can't help feeling it would lose something else in the process.

But remember several other enclosures have completely disappeared e.g. the old Lion and Tiger dells, Kodiak and Polar Bear enclosures, Wapiti enclosure, a range of smaller cat cages, central Indian rhino enclosure to name some of them. Yet even with them Whipsnade still felt no less spacious than it does now. While modern enclosures do tend to be larger than of old, the space there is so big that some new builds still wouldn't detract from the overall feel of Whipsnade.

 

[ajmcwhipsnade]

I guess with the old bear and cat enclosure's on the downs there is not a lot that can be done there due to planning permission etc. And I believe that may also apply to where the Wapiti's used to be?

I would argue that the small cat cages behind the bears are not really suitable for animals and the old India Rhino enclosure perhaps the same? Although I will admit the Congo Buffalo were fine in there, I guess the indoor accommodation etc was also deemed not suitable.

Im not against new enclosures of course not, and I am excited about the future for the Reptiles and Fish in the cloysters I just feel that enjoying what they have now is a lot better then arguing about what some feel the Zoo has or should have.

 

[IanRRobinson]

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, because I'm sure your suggestion could be implemented in an excellent way, but I think part of Whipsnade's charm is its park-land feel. The woods and spaces between enclosures are for me a defining feature of the place. If these spaces were replaced with enclosures then it might well be an excellent/better zoo, but I can't help feeling it would lose something else in the process.

That being said, my opinion is based on one visit this year and perhaps you and others remember a larger collection in years gone by. You also make some brilliant points about Black rhino. Whipsnade should absolutely add several 'zoo-flagship' species where captive breeding really could be the difference between extinction and not. Amur leopard etc.

The other thing I'd like to see, and to be honest I think is a necessity, is new housing for the Sea lions and Common hippos.

Sorry (and nothing personal) but this line of argument is having it both ways. If people say that London can't keep as many species as it used to do because the animals all need more space (an argument that some feel has thrown out the metaphorical baby with the metaphorical bath water), it is rather odd to then keep large areas of Whipsnade undeveloped because you like to see big empty spaces.

There is also the fact that as Pertinax points out large chunks of the park have been abandoned in the last thirty years. The cat enclosures near the Brown Bears spring to mind, and the old Lion and Tiger enclosures on the Downs really only needed modern fencing and housing; the actual animal space was excellent. The Lions had far more cover in the shape of bushes in their old chalk pit enclosure than they do now, and personally I think they made a far better exhibit.

Spectacled, Kodiak and Polar Bears all inhabited enclosures that were unquestionably substandard. They might have served other uses - both Chester and Edinburgh have created excellent aviaries for large raptors (Andean Condor and Steller's Sea Eagle respectively) simply by roofing over the pits. Dudley has used one of its old bear pits to house Sulawesi Crested Macaques, a trick that I think has also been performed at Newquay. I know hibernacula for bats have been installed in these spaces: it is hard to imagine these couldn't have been created elsewhere.

I would argue that the more species kept - and of course kept well - the more people will want to return to both sites. Panthera's comments make it clear that a great many Whipsnade visitors were not happy to see so few animals in such a big space. Whipsnade entry prices are not cheap, and children in particular quickly get bored of going to a zoo where they perceive nothing ever changes.

Finally, ZSL has a responsibility to the wider zoo community. Within Europe, taxa such as Andean Bear, Hartmann's Mountain Zebra and Addax - all animals of conservation importance - need further collections to hold stock. It really makes little sense to have a zoo where there is 150 odd acres unused.

One further point: in complete agreement with you about Common Hippo. Whipsnade have made woefully little of this iconic species over the years. Go to West Berlin to see what can be done with it!

 

[Pertinax]

I would argue that the small cat cages behind the bears are not really suitable for animals and the old India Rhino enclosure perhaps the same?

Agree. I was just pointing out that even with the extra enclosures Whipsnade never felt cramped or overcrowded. The old cat cages are certainly way below fit for purpose in this day and age. The indoor Indian rhino houses were awful too, just a couple of concrete sheds, though I'm not sure why the whole enclosure was later exchanged for an open space. I'm not sure what the situation is on the scenic downland section, possibly they cannot rebuild anything there.

 

[pipaluk]

Im not against new enclosures of course, and I am excited about the future for the Reptiles and Fish in the cloysters.

I'm glad someone is!! Personally, I don't think that Whipsnade will be improved by what is likely to be another 2nd rate aquarium/reptile house! London already covers these, I'd much rather see them get to work on Ian's list and display some animals that London can't ( or rather - won't).

 

[Pertinax]

and the old Lion and Tiger enclosures on the Downs really only needed modern fencing and housing; the actual animal space was excellent. The Lions had far more cover in the shape of bushes in their old chalk pit enclosure than they do now, and personally I think they made a far better exhibit.

One further point: in complete agreement with you about Common Hippo. Whipsnade have made woefully little of this iconic species over the years. Go to West Berlin to see what can be done with it!

The Lion and Tiger dells were really very good apart from the ugly high barred fencing. Very naturalistic for the time and spacious too. I still miss them rather- the current Lion enclosure IMO isn't half as good...

On the subject of Hippos, it was a similar situation with the Indian rhinos right up until they built the new house, and as (curiously) most of them still seem to live a lot of the time in the old housing, it still is rather. Continentals have so often been way ahead of our UK zoos when it comes to the best exhibit techniques.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

I think part of Whipsnade's charm is its park-land feel. The woods and spaces between enclosures are for me a defining feature of the place. If these spaces were replaced with enclosures then it might well be an excellent/better zoo, but I can't help feeling it would lose something else in the process.

Tierpark Berlin possesses much the same charm, and has a *significantly* larger collection than does Whipsnade - yet this is achieved in a rather smaller footplan of 160 hectares to the 245 hectares of Whipsnade!

As such, Whipsnade could *easily* add a handful of enclosures, paddocks and developments and still retain this charm without losing something in the process.

 

[Panthera1981]

I'm glad someone is!! Personally, I don't think that Whipsnade will be improved by what is likely to be another 2nd rate aquarium/reptile house!

The Cloisters redevelopment centres around current management's plan to make the zoo a year-round attraction (those who have visited Whipsnade in deep winter will know what I mean!).

So, more indoor exhibits, picnic/play areas and improvements to winter housing (i.e the zebras) are the current concerns. The Discovery Centre will be turned into Keepers quarters.

 

[gentle lemur]

Tierpark Berlin possesses much the same charm, and has a *significantly* larger collection than does Whipsnade - yet this is achieved in a rather smaller footplan of 160 hectares to the 245 hectares of Whipsnade!

As such, Whipsnade could *easily* add a handful of enclosures, paddocks and developments and still retain this charm without losing something in the process.

I don't think that all of Whipsnade's area is usable, but undoubtedly much more could be done. The zoo does need some small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fishes for educational reasons: but the emphasis has always been and must continue to be large species, mainly mammals.
I would hate to see Whipsnade lose any of the large species that it currently has. I cannot imagine the zoo without brown bears in that historic paddock - although I wouldn't miss those incurved spikes on the bars if it could be modernised a little. But then I couldn't imagine Bison Hill without bison and that did happen for a while. The wise policy is surely to reinforce Whipsnade's strengths, adding species from temperate climates which suit the site's character if costs must be closely controlled. I would prefer to see European wolves or dhole rather than hunting dogs and I certainly support the gradual development of a pure breeding group of chimps (I don't think the accommodation would suit orangs at all).

Alan

 

[pipaluk]

The Cloisters redevelopment centres around current management's plan to make the zoo a year-round attraction (those who have visited Whipsnade in deep winter will know what I mean!).

So, more indoor exhibits, picnic/play areas and improvements to winter housing (i.e the zebras) are the current concerns. The Discovery Centre will be turned into Keepers quarters.

That may be current management's plan, but I don't think Whipsnade will ever be an all year round attraction without spending a fortune . Those that want to go in winter will go however cold it is. I really cant see people flocking to see the aquarium/reptile house/butterflies on a snowy January day. But Polar Bear , Snow Leopard(in ADDITION to the brown bear please!) and Amur Leopard in the Snow they might want to see, along with the other hardier species. If they want to be in the warm, surely they'll either stay at home or go to London!

 

[ajmcwhipsnade]

I am honestly not trying to be awkward, I just don't feel a zoo needs to display loads and loads of species. IMO the zoo is the best in the UK along with Colchester and both are what I would regard as having key parts of any good zoo. For me the first and most important thing is the current site and current species and both places have great enclosuers.

I know it seems I am the only one who has these views about Whipsnade, and that does not make me any more correct/incorrect then anyone else, I just don't see why there is so much negative views towards the ZSL and the work they do. I love animals and zoo's as much as I am sure you all do, so I appolgise if I get at your goat but I really don't see the reasons for such negative comments.

The view that there could be so many more species on the site I don't think really is that important, however if the zoo does add more then great I look forward to it. I just don't see the need for so much negative comments, I know its a forum and everyone quite rightly can express there own opinion, it just seems wrong from my point of view that two great sites (whipsnade and London) get so much negative comments when they do so much great work here in the UK and abroad.

 

[stubeanz]

I love whipsnade but wish that a small piece of it's land was turned into a couple of large indoor houses i.e a rodent house or small mammal house.

It could provide much needed shelter from the elements and also go alongside ZSL's conservation policies, a rodent house could help establish a hundred endangered rodents in the space it could conserve just one large mammal.

If a few animal houses like above were added I junk whipsnade would be a perfect zoo tbh!

 

[FunkyGibbon]

Sorry (and nothing personal) but this line of argument is having it both ways. If people say that London can't keep as many species as it used to do because the animals all need more space (an argument that some feel has thrown out the metaphorical baby with the metaphorical bath water), it is rather odd to then keep large areas of Whipsnade undeveloped because you like to see big empty spaces.

Spectacled, Kodiak and Polar Bears all inhabited enclosures that were unquestionably substandard. They might have served other uses - both Chester and Edinburgh have created excellent aviaries for large raptors (Andean Condor and Steller's Sea Eagle respectively) simply by roofing over the pits. Dudley has used one of its old bear pits to house Sulawesi Crested Macaques, a trick that I think has also been performed at Newquay. I know hibernacula for bats have been installed in these spaces: it is hard to imagine these couldn't have been created elsewhere.

I would argue that the more species kept - and of course kept well - the more people will want to return to both sites. Panthera's comments make it clear that a great many Whipsnade visitors were not happy to see so few animals in such a big space. Whipsnade entry prices are not cheap, and children in particular quickly get bored of going to a zoo where they perceive nothing ever changes.

Finally, ZSL has a responsibility to the wider zoo community. Within Europe, taxa such as Andean Bear, Hartmann's Mountain Zebra and Addax - all animals of conservation importance - need further collections to hold stock. It really makes little sense to have a zoo where there is 150 odd acres unused.

One further point: in complete agreement with you about Common Hippo. Whipsnade have made woefully little of this iconic species over the years. Go to West Berlin to see what can be done with it!

Don't worry, nothing personal taken
If I might extend the metaphor further, the only reason you can't have your cake and eat it is if there isn't enough cake. By which I mean to say that if the UK had more large 'comprehensive' zoos with a wide range of species the (necessary) loss of many of London's larger species would not be seen as reason to develope Whipsnade, which after all, is one of the most popular zoos in the UK in its current form, your reasonable criticisms not withstanding. This is not the case though and I think it's clear yours is the stronger argument from a conservation perspective. In terms of education I would still disagree, I think people want a variety of species and quality enclosures, not an exhaustive collection.

It sounds like some of the old enclosures could have been repurposed, and I agree it is a shame this didn't happen.

On Berlin's Hippo House I agree that the inside is excellent, but for a megafauna grazing species the common hippo paddock seemed absurdly small.

Tierpark Berlin possesses much the same charm, and has a *significantly* larger collection than does Whipsnade - yet this is achieved in a rather smaller footplan of 160 hectares to the 245 hectares of Whipsnade!

As such, Whipsnade could *easily* add a handful of enclosures, paddocks and developments and still retain this charm without losing something in the process.

Point taken, (I will avoid making a divisive comment about the Tierpark's 'spacesaving' carnivore housing )

That may be current management's plan, but I don't think Whipsnade will ever be an all year round attraction without spending a fortune . Those that want to go in winter will go however cold it is. I really cant see people flocking to see the aquarium/reptile house/butterflies on a snowy January day. But Polar Bear , Snow Leopard(in ADDITION to the brown bear please!) and Amur Leopard in the Snow they might want to see, along with the other hardier species. If they want to be in the warm, surely they'll either stay at home or go to London!

Adding charismatic cold weather species is an excellent idea. This is one development I could really get behind!

 

[IanRRobinson]

I love whipsnade but wish that a small piece of it's land was turned into a couple of large indoor houses i.e a rodent house or small mammal house.

It could provide much needed shelter from the elements and also go alongside ZSL's conservation policies, a rodent house could help establish a hundred endangered rodents in the space it could conserve just one large mammal.

If a few animal houses like above were added I junk whipsnade would be a perfect zoo tbh!

Stu, ZSL had a world-class small mammal house at London. Then they smashed it up to put in a not-very-big rainforest exhibit.

Indoor housing for elephants, rhino, giraffe, zebra, antelope and chimps does exist. If the old Children's Zoo was reopened as a small animal facility more could be done.

But even if London did get an extra ten acres it wouldn't exceed 50 in total. Large mammals have to be concentrated at Whipsnade and looking at comments made by Pertinax, panthera and pipaluk it seems I'm not alone in thinking that Whipsnade's developmental thrust should be broadly along those lines.

Sorry, ajmc, but it grates to be accused of negativity. I note from your avatar that you're a Spurs fan. Would you like it to be told that you ought to accept that Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester City were always going to be more successful and you should just like being in the top half of the table with occasional cup semi-finals?

That's exactly what you're asking from those who know of, or have seen, enclosures abandoned and never replaced at Whipsnade, who wonder why the centre of London Zoo is dominated by three large lawns, and who have visited similar zoos in Europe where more gets done by organisations with far less clout than ZSL. I don't know what you do for a living, but in any business, nobody ever annoys a manager more than the guy who has the intrinsic ability to be the leader but just settles for being somebody who does the acceptable minimum. Underachievement is a waste.

 

[oflory]

I don't think anyone could accuse me of being anything other than a loyal fanboy of ZSL but the criticism here is pretty much justified, I feel. Whipsnade has the potential to be so much more than it currently is!

The sheer amount of empty space, not just on the downs but even in the centre of the zoo, just looks unimaginative, lazy and boring. And the sea lions NEED somewhere better. I felt a bit embarrassed as a Fellow showing my girlfriend their tank last time I was there (c. October)

And I say this as someone who loves Whipsnade, one of my favourite zoos behind London and who wants to see it as the best it can be.

 

[IanRRobinson]

I don't think anyone could accuse me of being anything other than a loyal fanboy of ZSL but the criticism here is pretty much justified, I feel. Whipsnade has the potential to be so much more than it currently is!

The sheer amount of empty space, not just on the downs but even in the centre of the zoo, just looks unimaginative, lazy and boring. And the sea lions NEED somewhere better. I felt a bit embarrassed as a Fellow showing my girlfriend their tank last time I was there (c. October)

And I say this as someone who loves Whipsnade, one of my favourite zoos behind London and who wants to see it as the best it can be.

Welcome aboard, oflory!

Whipsnade's Water Mammal Exhibit was of course built as a dophinarium. As such no land area was required and none was provided. I think there are many of us who feel that it is simply not up to scratch for sealions, and I fear that they are kept primarily for the shows.

My idea would be to replace them with penguins. Install a new roof that covers all the area,remove the seating, knock out the dividing wall and you would then have the ability to provide a high class subantarctic penguin facility. If an effort was made to get King Penguins under licence from South Georgia or the Falklands, they might serve as the flagship for something I feel is very important, namely highlighting the conservation issues facing the UK dependencies in the South Atlantic.

They would join the Gentoos and Rockhoppers already on site. (The existing penguin pool, meshed over (which ought to be done anyway because of Red Fox predation) would be lovely for seaduck).

Satellite exhibits housing (say) South Georgia Pintail, Striated Caracara, Gough Island Moorhen and maybe Tristan da Cunha Grosbeak and St Helena Plover would serve to highlight some of the endemic species few Britons know and for which we have a global responsibility.

 

[Pertinax]

I think there are many of us who feel that it is simply not up to scratch for sealions, and I fear that they are kept primarily for the shows.

Agree with you there. The trouble is without them they would be left with an empty purpose-built Aquatic building with the tier seats etc so really need to keep on with the shows at least unless they renovated it, closed it or pulled it all down.

 

[Pertinax]

But then I couldn't imagine Bison Hill without bison and that did happen for a while.

...the gradual development of a pure breeding group of chimps (I don't think the accommodation would suit orangs at all).

With currently only one Bison that could be in danger of happening again.

I don't think Orangs would suit Whipsnade at all either, neither its location nor the enclosure. London got rid of them for several reasons that keeping them again at Whipsnade wouldn't address. IMO they should go down the amalgamation/pure Chimp route.

 

[Pertinax]

That may be current management's plan, but I don't think Whipsnade will ever be an all year round attraction without spending a fortune . Those that want to go in winter will go however cold it is. I really cant see people flocking to see the aquarium/reptile house/butterflies on a snowy January day. But Polar Bear , Snow Leopard(in ADDITION to the brown bear please!) and Amur Leopard in the Snow they might want to see, along with the other hardier species. If they want to be in the warm, surely they'll either stay at home or go to London!

Got to agree with all of this too. Whipsnade's very location- it is not the most accessible of places- means that (IMO) larger numbers of people will never be attracted to new indoor-type exhibits there in the winter months. It is essentially a summer-time venue, although hardcore zoofans know of course it can be great in winter too. But for the majority of average visitors I don't think its high on their wintertime radar. But some larger 'A list' cold weather species could just act as a greater wintertime draw and so make a difference to that perspective.

Like many engaged in this debate I hold Whipsnade in great affection. I probably first went when I was about four years old and those very first visits remain etched as some of my earliest memories, both zoo and otherwise. It still remains one of my favourite UK collections but it is rather sad to see it in its somewhat slimmed-down state nowadays.