Beauval and other European collections compared

I don't follow European zoos much. I certainly plan on visiting all of the major players at some point in my life, but until today I was completely unaware of Beauval. I was browsing through the gallery and have been trying to get as much info as I can about this new tropical dome, and I'll I ave to say is...

woah.

This place looks genuinely incredible! I wasn't expecting too much, but there is so much to love just from the photos. A netted aviary with hippos and underwater viewing? This is genius! How has no other zoo thought of this? Not to mention they have an actual land area, live plants, and access to a separate grazing zone in the form of the nyala paddock. Superb!

The massive elephant paddock, that brilliant China exhibit, that insane looking bird show, two species of tree kangaroo. This doesn't even take into account the new tropics dome. Is this now the largest rainforest house in Europe? Either way, manatees and douc langurs are enough to satisfy.

Is there anybody who has visited this place who would be wiling to back up my thoughts? I am dying to know more about this zoo.

 

The hippo exhibit does look fantastic! I'm disappointed in myself for not doing any research ahead of time. There were all these ads in Le Metro and I decided two hours was just too far away.

I should have gone.

 

Slowly slowly Pachyderm Pro.

First answer : you must follow more european zoos as you can discover a lot of good and brilliant zoos.

Second answer : Beauval is a great zoo with an impressive collection but there is a lot of better zoos in Europe IMO (for some example : Chester, Vienna, Zürich, Prague, Leipzig, Koln...) regarding exhibits and collections.

Some exhibits in Beauval are quite goods but nothing excellent. The hippos aviary is impressive but not as large as you can think. Too much space is for visitors, the hippos don't have access to the grassland area (reserved to the nyalas) and the red river hogs enclosure is under a pathway ! The elephants have no access to the paddocks during winter (it's too hilly) and the barn is far too smal without real indoor paddock. The dome is just the fifth in europe after Leipzig, Emmen, Arnhem and Zürich. At last, the historical part of the park is outdate and need serious improvements.

So, as I said before, it's a great park and if you want to see major europeans zoos you must see it but it's not the top.

 

It is a really nice zoo, hence why its advertising always says :Le plus beau zoo de France' rather the best although it is fairly certainly both

The hippo aviary is my favourite exhibit in the zoo - it was very well thought through and executed. I haven't seen the Tropical Dome yet though it has made me very excited. The China area is nice and the elephant exhibit is in my opinion one of the better ones in Europe. The thing that is most striking when you visit is how green the grass is and how aesthetically pleasing all the enclosures are. However, work remains to be done, especially in the tiger, leopard, cougar and a few of the monkey enclosures. However, they have been slowly dealing with these problems over the years, with the new fantastic cheetah and lion exhibits as well as the African wild dogs, and I hope they will continue to develop into the space they have around the zoo.

I don't think the douc langurs have arrived yet but that, along with the harpy eagles, should be very exciting indeed.

EDIT: I think the harpy eagles have arrived, haven't they?

Anyway, however, it is important to note that there are likely better zoos in Europe. Beauval may one of the best at what it does best, but zoos like Vienna or Plzen are special for different reasons (history and varied collections respectively). Zoos similar to Beauval in a sense are Leipzig (which has a historical element to it as well but nice theming), Chester (which could be considered Beauval's approximate equal as they are extremely similar in terms of style of exhibitry) and Doue (a zoo that has toned down Beauval's collection and toned up the craziness of the enclosures )

 

Chester, equal or similar to Beauval ? Certainly not for me.

The major difference is that in Chester the major part of the animals kept are endangered (one of the most important percentage in Europe) and a lot of exhibits have multi paddocks for breeding (which doesn't exist in Beauval). Regarding how look the enclosures it is never similar. How can we compare the best orangutan exhibit in the world (RORA), Spirit of the jaguar, Tsavo Black Rhinos Experience, cheetah's complex or Madagascar with the enclosures in Beauval ?
Sorry but I can't agree.
In Chester, all is done for animals. In Beauval it's for visitors first.
Chester is far better than Beauval. No game !

But I agree about Doué which is really outstanding.

 

Not true. Chester holds 13 species of Critically endangered mammal and 8 species of critically endangered bird. Beauval holds 12 species of critically endangered mammal and 9 species of critically endangered bird. Chester has exactly the same number of endangered mammal (27) and bird (13) species as Beauval. Therefore the difference is precisely nil.

In Chester there are only a few examples of multi paddocks for breeding, being the rhinos and a few not very rare antelope species (Roan antelope, zebra etc.)
Meanwhile in Beauval there are multi paddocks for the elephants, okapis, pandas, koalas, tree kangaroos, and many more. I don't know Chester as well as Beauval, but the fact remains, Beauval is more than comparable in this area. Now, onto the exhibits. The cheetahs are certainly comparable, with Beauval's being greener, more visible, and more like cheetah habitat. It also has a stream and a small pond in it. The Chester orangutan is not the best in the world - i can think of many that surpass it (have you been to Chester btw?) and I think Beauval's, while it may be slightly less good, is still within the realm of comparability. The rhino exhibit is not really comparable. Beauval doesn't have black rhinos, it has southern whites, which are much less endangered and therefore did not need a breeding area of its own. When a zoo acquires black rhinos, it is immediately assumed that they will need their own area for breeding, whereas white rhinos are much more commonly kept in mixed species exhibits as Beauval has done. Beauval's elephant enclosure is also larger than the much-lauded rhino complex at Chester despite getting much less fanfare. Chester's jaguar area, it must be said, is much better than that at Beauval. However, saying the Madagascar exhibit is much better than the Madagascar area at Beauval is like saying Beauval's gorilla exhibit is much better than Chester's...

Does Chester have anything like Beauval's Hippo aviary and surrounding enclosures? Is Chester's lion enclosure anything like as good as Beauval's lion enclosure? And most of all, is Chester's elephant enclosure anything near as good as Beauval's? These are all counter-comparisons that can be made. In terms of conservation, Beauval conducts just as many, if not more conservation projects than Chester.

I don't think it is fair either to say that it is all done for the animals in Chester and all for the visitors in Beauval, because that is not true. If I were to compare the space that each animal had at both zoos, I don't doubt that they would be relatively equal. Greenery and enrichment are both equally prevalent in both establishments.

So no, I think the zoos are certainly comparable.

 

I don't really want to get drawn into this, and yet.....
Can you actually name many orangutan set-ups that are better than Chester's?

 

Couple of points and then I'm out...

Okapi, cheetah, both bear species, Indian rhino, tigers...

Different subspecies, different aesthetic and partially different needs/preferences...

Different species, different set-up, fairly good breeding at Chester compared to Beauval...

I can go on but I can't be bothered, I will say that you really are doing Chester a disservice here though.

 

I know, I noticed afterwards and I think I should have made a few counterpoints to my own. However, conversely, there were some unfair things said of Beauval earlier which most certainly were not true

Do the spectacled bears have several paddocks? When TLD went through enclosure sizes etc. he said it was all the same enclosure, or maybe I misunderstood?

 

As I know well the two places I definitely can't agree with you. Does not matter. I will be happy to visit with you amur leopard and discuss about our different thinkings.

 

I think they have the option to split it when there are cubs. I recall a wire fence separating the front from the back enclosure on my last visit. Chester regulars will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

IMO there are two in the British Isles alone that surpass it - Dublin and Jersey, although these enclosures have of course had more time for foliage to grow and for the exhibit to look more natural along with time for the apes to get used to it.

 

With regards to Dublin, I'm going to quote from @lintworm:

"Disappointing. The horizontal space is huge, but very little use is made of it vertically. The only climbing opportunities are these fake trees. I also don't like these very steep banks with extra drowning risks. For most zoo visitors it will look very pleasing aesthetically, but for the Orangs it is rather bad given all the missed opportunities. The indoor enclosure seems rather old, but is one of the worst I have seen..."

(taken from this photo: Orangutan & Siamang outdoor enclosure - ZooChat)

For Jersey I'm not convinced, but for the sake of argument let's say it's better.

How about outside the British Isles?

 

I would say that Indianapolis's exhibit, while not for some, it pretty good in terms of space and enrichment, though not for natural look. Woodland Park zoo also has a very good exhibit.Omaha is great for vertical height (65 foot tall structures). Leipzig also has a really good enclosure, particularly in terms of indoor enclosures. There are a few more, and I could explain my choices if you so wished

 

These are four well-known exhibits, which are usually considered good (Indianapolis excepted, although I except myself from this exception). But are they better than Chester's? If so, why and how? It's not going to shock you that I think in each case Chester's excellency exceeds these quoted 'pretty good', 'very good', 'great' and 'really good' set-ups.

 

Indianapolis's orangutan complex is atrocious IMO for a variety of reasons. Its basically a bunch of metal poles exposed to all the elements...

 

They are negligible differences, but:

Chester:




Leipzig








They are more than comparable. I'd say Leipzig's indoor is better and the outdoors are about the same. Can do this with the others if you wish...

 

Saying the indoor in Leipzig is better, shows that you don't seem to know a lot about where Orangutans live, which is not in mock-rock mountains, but in trees. The Chester indoor enclosure seems to provide significantly more height and climbing opportunities than Leipzig does. Additionally Chester seems to have the option to separate Orangutans as they have multiple good indoor enclosures, which given their social behaviour is appropriate. Leipzig only has 1 on-show indoor enclosure, which seems to be made for Chimpanzee rather than for Orangutan, the same could be said for their outdoor enclosure...

If you were really going to compare Orangutan enclosures with Chester, try Frankfurt or Apenheul (though only outdoors)

 

Have you visited either Chester or Leipzig?

The Chester outdoor exhibit you showed is one of four for the Bornean orangs in ROTR. There are an additional three outdoor enclosures in Monsoon Forest for the Sumatrans (although I'm not sure if these are currently in use in the aftermath of the fire). The exhibit pictured already has far more height than the sole outdoor exhibit for orangutans in Pongoland, and a lot of natural undergrowth, although most of this is probably not capable of supporting an adult's weight.

Where Chester really shines is the roofed outdoor exhibits and the indoor ones. They are very high. The wire roofs encourage climbing and allow scatter feeds (inside at least, not sure about outside). They also allow the use of hanging lines and fixed lines leading up vertically, allowing the orangs the use of the whole space and a dynamic environment. There are also ledges up high so natural laziness leads to less terrestrial behaviour. In Monsoon Forest there are also sway poles coming up from the ground to further complicate the climbing opportunities. There are three indoor enclosures for each species, for a total of six, and then, especially in ROTRA, significant offshow exhibits as well.

I'm not going to fall into the trap of criticising Leipzig in order to make my point, but suffice to say whilst it's an extraordinary building I think the more terrestrial apes do far better there. I cannot, at all, see why, even based on just those two photos, you would think that the indoors at Leipzig is better, and whilst the outdoors might look somewhat similar in reality they are not.

Frankfurt is the only zoo I have visited that is comparable to Chester, although with twice as many species and three times as many exhibits I'd still give the British zoo my preference. And Apenheul is the only zoo I've not visited which occured to me for this conversation

 

See also: Melbourne.