Port Lympne Wild Animal Park American review of Port Lympne

After my visit last week, here are some thoughts on Port Lympne from "across the pond" as you say.

Getting there: It is fairly easy to get there on local bus #10, which goes through many surrounding towns and terminates at Ashford International Rail Station. You can get to Ashford on local British trains or on Eurostar from Paris (with connections throughout Europe). Closest hotels are in Hythe, about a 15 minute ride from Port Lympne on the same #10 bus. (FYI - Hythe is a very charming country town and I stayed at a very nice little Best Western Stade Court right on the English Channel, which is very inexpensive during non-summer times). Please note that the late afternoon buses at closing time do NOT pull into Port Lympne so you will have to take the long walk down the entry drive to the bus stop on the main road.

Impressions: This place is HUGE! I was there from open until close and still did not see it all. (Of course I spent from 10-11:30am glued to the indian desert cat enclosure, so that may explain why I didn't get all around). Be prepared for A LOT of walking on hilly terrain. Fine for me, but people with physical conditions (especially walkers or wheelchairs) would have a tough time here. They sell a souvenir map at the entrance gift shop for 95 pence and I would recommend getting one.

I skipped most of the primate enclosures, since I was there to photograph cats. However, the few I saw as I walked past them were not very good. As far as I can tell (remember I did not see many) the monkey cages are all just fenced in jungle gyms, with no attempt at naturalistic designs. The two exceptions are the neighboring baboon savanna and open top DeBrazza Guenon. This last one is fantastic. Very thickly wooded and easy to photograph over the railing with no barriers.

Cats, dogs, and hoofstock are the other main animal types and all of them have excellent exhibits. The enclosures, like the park itself, are large to huge. The black rhinos, which they actively breed and release in South Africa, have paddocks that appear to range from one to five acres in size. There is also a 100 acre African savannah (mixed species) that you pay a little extra to go on a ride through. Unfortunately, I ran out of time and did not get to do it. If I had this trip to do over, I would have spent two days at Port Lympne, because there is really no way to see it all in one day. There are several small cat complexes, all lushly filled, which was a real treat for me. Unfortunately, they do not label on the map which cats are where - I really lucked out that the indian desert cat I desperately wanted to photograph was in the first cat area I went to.

The tree lined paths are beautiful, the rolling hilly terrain provides excellent scenery, the mansion is beautiful, the restaurant (inside the old mansion plant conservatory) is excellent, their conservation programs are excellent. This is one of my new favorite zoological parks. If I was mainly a primate photographer I would have been disappointed and I think they need to work on their monkey cages to make it a truly first-rate park. But overall (especially for cat, dog, and hoofstock lovers), it is just outstanding.

 

Good review
Did you feel that way about the primate cages purely on an aesthetic level or animal welfare wise? I think they're fine for the latter myself, I'm just curious

 

Why do the words 'can' and 'worms' spring to mind?



More seriously, interesting review - always nice to hear a non-British view of a British zoo! I'm heading to Port Lympne myself at the end of the month for the first time in some years. Very much looking forward to it!

 

You are right they are, however this is still very much a private collection (even thou it is open to the public).

 

@Arizona Docent: thanks for the mini review!

Dare I comment on this thread? What is interesting to me is that I just finished reading two of my latest zoo history books (about the Brookfield and Lincoln Park Zoos - both in Chicago and both far from perfect establishments) and in many cases there were references to "the end of the cage era", the "dismantling of outdated exhibits", and a "much more modern, natural approach to maintaining animals in captivity". Based on new zoo design over the past 30 years Port Lympne is badly outdated, but then again I respect the opinion of those that enjoy looking at glorified hamster cages. (Just poking fun at what truly do look like massive guinea pig boxes, even to those that actually like the cages) It is just that practically nowhere else on the planet, other than perhaps some subpar Asian zoos and the odd metal remnant from a former era, are great apes kept in steel boxes. All of the kiddie toys, slides, spare tires, children's jungle gyms and containers full of hay cannot hide the fact that there are primates in steel cages at both Howletts and Port Lympne. I say this with all due respect to the overwhelming number of Brits on this forum who say that I should visit the enclosures in person. If I do visit Europe on an extended zoo trip I highly doubt that I'd be stopping by British zoos other than Chester and Edinburgh, as the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and other nations would perhaps draw my interest away.

At the end of the day those that love Port Lympne will continue to praise the privately owned collection, but not many people visit the place anyway. There are only about 180,000 visitors each year, and if an individual wants to see a modern, natural environment for primates then they can just check out "Gorilla Kingdom" at tiny London Zoo (35 acres). Now there is a praiseworthy exhibit...tongue firmly in cheek.

I am fortunate to live within 2.5 hours of Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo, which has many exhibits where there are zero fences, posts, cages or even visible moats. At some of the animal habitats it is difficult for me to figure out where the enclosure begins or ends, and so maybe I am too demanding when it comes to modern zoos. Seeing lush, green, beautifully landscaped environments, with animals acting and looking as if they are actually in the wild, leads to increased donations to conservation programs and an image of realism. Zoos were originally built to entertain people, and even now in the 21st century zoos are still in existence for homo sapiens as much as they are for the captive inhabitants. Creating natural environments allows both the enclosed animals and human gawkers to enjoy a day at the zoo without being disappointed in the enclosures on offer, and thus fosters a love for nature and the world that possibly cannot be obtained from attempting to catch glimpses of apes through metal walls. Maybe I am wrong and a love for nature and conservation can be achieved through the Port Lympne-style cages, but you can bet that the WWF (World Wildlife Federation) won't be using any images of the enclosures at Port Lympne to increase awareness about conservation in the Congo.

It is intriguing to see how elephant paddocks are now regarded as borderline unacceptable if they are under 2 acres in size; bear grottoes getting bulldozed or overhauled in favour of natural ursine environments; boxed cages being torn down and multi-million dollar jungles being erected in their place; massive African Savannas being created where tourists can imagine being on vacation in the Dark Continent; underwater viewing areas are almost the standard for excellence when it comes to hippo, otter, beaver, seal or polar bear exhibits; and zoos have come farther in the past 34 years (my lifetime) then they did in thousands of previous years. That is why I scratch my head when seemingly intelligent individuals praise enclosures that appear to be outdated. Maybe barred cages and concrete pits are not due to be bulldozed in the eyes of others, but my personal opinion is that every single one of them should be either demolished or extensively renovated.

I love to see lush, green, natural, realistic zoo exhibits, and I cannot stand to see pits, grottoes, bars, metal poles or jagged walls separating human visitors from captive animals. These are my thoughts on the Port Lympne hamster boxes, which will be no surprise to anyone who knows me well on this amazing forum. This post is not a rant but more of a puzzled opinion on why individuals praise what appear to be archaic zoo enclosures. Now I'm off to teach Grade 10's for the day, and perhaps I'll show them a series of images of animal enclosures and see which ones they prefer. To no surprise every single time I show students images from zoos they unanimously lean towards the modern, natural environments over the steel cages. (I cannot apply my zoo obsession to English classes, but sometimes I find a way to sneak it into Social Studies.)

 

@ Snowleopard:

First, Port Lypmne has a number of so-called naturalistic primate enclosures - some excellent open-topped monkey enclosures with lots of vegetation, trees ect., and some pretty barren, open gorilla enclosures that are unfortunately hardly ever used by the apes.

Second, you are really making a BIG mistake calling the Howletts/Port Lypmne primate/ape cages "Hamster boxes" - because most of them (exept some of the oldest) are very spacious with tons of climbing possibilities. They do not look pretty and fotographing is difficult, but that`s all they have in common with small concrete, outdated pits, grottos or cages from the 19th century or substandard 3rd world zoos.

You`d miss out 2 of the very best zoos in Europe if you skipped the Aspinall zoos, I`d really feel sorry for you.

 

yes you would, but can i ask, i can see why you want to visit chester but why edinburgh, you've seen everything that is uniqe about it in the uk (koalas ect)?, is it somthing to do with the penguin parade?

 

Have you visited Edinburgh Cat-Man? Snowleopard has said before that he considers Chester Britain's best zoo; if he considers Edinburgh Britain's second best then I think he's probably not too far wrong on that one. It'd probably be my pick.

I don't see why London's size had to get brought into the discussion - 35 acres is plenty for a world-class zoo if the species are well-chosen (and London's getting there in that regard). And I still think the Aspinall primate cages get a lot of criticism for not being something that they're very deliberately not trying to be, which is a little unfair. They're not leafy representations of African rainforests in the same way a Boeing 747 isn't a tin opener. That's just not what they're trying to be.

 

And as has been mentioned before, the gorilla cages actually stimulate a natural environment such as the roof acting as the forest canopy, ropes and frames being the trees to climb, and a 3 foot straw layer representing the leaf litter. An open, grassy enclosure may not be as naturalistic as they want to be.

 

A good point. They may not aesthetically be a rainforest but they're functionally much closer than many 'naturalistic' exhibits (see Gorilla Kingdom!).

 

This is the whole point thou, well they may not look appealing to the human eye (although you fail to notice it, when there is a beauty group of gorillas behaving like you have never seen before in your life) they function very well.

And that is the point, they work they are also educationally in the set up of an artificial environment.

I don’t think anyone will argue they would love a natural gorilla exhibit IF it works, and these are the next best thing.

 

I agree with Maguari, Edinburgh is my number two UK zoo by quite a margin (and not because of the penguin parade). Much of this is, of course, to do with the excellent Budongo Trail but there are several other fantastic exhibits and the future plans are looking promising. I, too, would be interested to know whether or not you have been.

Snowleopard: I can sympathise with a number of your points, however, I will never agree about the Aspinall gorilla cages. I have visited CGF and can honestly say that I appreciated the gorillas more at Howletts. Like you, I do prefer to see naturalistic exhibits however I found both of the Aspinall parks a breath of fresh air. Before visiting I was pretty much of your opinion, but tried to go with an open mind and returned cursing my own ignorance. The "hamster cages" have a special vibe to them, I can honestly say that the gorillas there seemed so "happy" and this, I am sure, is something other visitors felt too. I spent a long time in the kitchen garden and watched the people as well as gorillas, you may be surprised to know that a lot of people I watched stayed for at least half an hour - far better than the five minutes (maximum) that they would spend at most other zoo displays of this species. And, furthermore, I would be willing to bet that if a prominent donation box was placed next to each gorilla enclosure, they would (proportionally) receive far more money than CGF has. This is not diminishing the Bronx's achievement, just saying there's more than one way to exhibit a gorilla.

 

Snowleopard, I do love your reviews of US zoos, and I know where you are coming from with brilliant Seattle WP on your doorstep. However, on Port Lympne I beg to differ with you considerably. I do not care one inch for naturalistic primate exhibits if they do not function for the species in it. I have seen too many examples of those with an aesthetic view on the general public.

PL may not be the best visited collection, but then I would not rate a television programme by the number of people watching it. It does tell you zilch! I is about quality and animal welfare and from that point of view I would rate PL among the best primate zoos globally. That these to you unattractive cages do not appeal - fine on you (I do not take offence, and nor do I hope you do), but they function for the primates in them. PL has the best breeding record for Cercopithecinae and Colobinae anywhere. This is where most zoos nowadays completely neglect and ignore both these tropical rainforest primate families (for favour of bonobo, gorilla, gibbon and orang).

Besides, despite being low on finances it is the collection with a considerable conservation outreach in situ ... and is part of several state-of-the-art reintroduction projects (where others dare not tread like in gorillas in Gabon and Congo-Brazzaville).

Other setting the record straight on the above, I enjoyed your perspective and review of the PL zoo. And you are probably right that we will continue to agree to disagree on this one (as I very much see a difference between an European and an US/Canadian perspective on zoos in general, no offence there either ... intended).

Regards,

K.B.

 

i have been to edinburgh zoo, and it probably is the best zoo i've visited (im not including aspinall) and not only for the penguin parade etc. But i was just enquiring, as snowleopard has seen the many great thing edinburgh has at other zoos (apart from a decent chimpanzee exhibit, i think)

 

Although it is a plus, the zoo's main draw is certainly not his species list. Koalas are nice to see, but I'm sure snowleopard will agree they are nothing without a good exhibit.

 

An interesting review of Port Lympne.
I would point out that although it was started as a private collection, it is now part of a charitable trust, the Aspinall Foundation.
I sympathise with the author's problem of spending too long watching the cats to do justice to the primates - my problem is almost the same, just the other way round . Moloch gibbons, broad-nosed gentle lemurs )), crowned sifaka, golden-bellied mangabeys and drills, plus a wide range of less unusual species adds up to a collection that at least matches their cat collection (and there are the gorillas too of course). I dislike most of the primate cages on aesthetic grounds, but they are spacious and the standard of husbandry at the Aspinall collections is exemplary.

Alan

 

While I find your analogy amusing. I'm not sure it fits. You wouldn't open a can of pork'n'beans with a Boeing 747, and you'd be hard pressed to cross the Atlantic on a "tin" opener, but both the Aspinall gorilla enclosures, and the Woodland Park Zoo's gorilla exhibit both keep captive gorillas healthy and happy, and attempt to teach the public something about them. So I'm not sure your analogy really holds up. Any thoughts?

 

I will freely admit to exaggerating!

No - it's a ridiculously overstated analogy. But I wanted to make the point that criticising the design of Aspinall ape enclosures because they're not pretty is to miss the point - they were not designed to look nice (any more than the plane was designed to open the tin of beans). They were designed to be good gorilla enclosures.

Gorilla Kingdom (London) and Orang-Utan Forest (Colchester) (and even in some ways the indoors of Realm of the Red Ape at Chester) were designed to look pretty and still don't (to varying degrees). That I would criticise, as they've spent good money on making it pretty, so they ought to do it right. The Aspinall parks directed their money at making a stimulating environment for the apes, so that is what they should be judged on.

 

Fair enough, you provide a reasonable defense for your analogy, and come across as being quite sensible (as always). You do make an excellent point, and it is important to distinguish between the Aspinall exhibits where no attempt at naturalism is made versus exhibits that attempt and fail to be naturalistic. Many (on this side of the pond anyway,) would argue that naturalistic exhibits should ALWAYS be the goal because of the potential take-home message. This argument has already been hashed out many times here, so if there is anyone new enough to have not participated in such a debate yet, then feel free, but you might want to go through and read some of the previous debates on this topic first.

Thank you Arizona Docent for your insightful review. It would seem that based purely on collection (numerous animals that are next to impossible to find anywhere else outside of the wild) that the Aspinall parks should draw the attention of any hardcore zoo fan. Are we to be expecting to see some of the fruits of your labor waiting to find the Indian desert cat? I know I would be interested to see some shots.

 

I'd just like to point out that this thread has been terrific, and what ZooChat is all about! A review of Port Lympne has evolved into an intriguing discussion, where everyone has something vital to add without any offense being taken. We are all hardcore zoo enthusiasts on this site, and therefore respect for each other is paramount when dissecting the good, bad and ugly features of zoos. I'd like to put an emphasis on the "ugly" when talking about the Aspinall gorilla cages. Haha

I still think that gorilla exhibits such as the ones at the Bronx Zoo, Disney's Animal Kingdom, Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo and San Diego Zoo would please fans of all great ape enclosures. There are large troops foraging in thick foliage, places for shade, and canopies for relaxation. The best of Howletts/Port Lympne are combined with natural-looking environments, and I don't think that happens at a number of other zoos with so-called "naturalistic" enclosures. Perhaps the Aspinall approach is fantastic for the apes and much better than many immersive exhibits, but at the end of the day in places like New York, San Diego, Seattle and Orlando I feel that zoo fans can have it both ways.