Chester Zoo Chester Zoo 2017 Review

That aviary is for African birds, I doubt that anything from Europe on the Edge will be moved there.

 

I like the Europe on the Edge Aviary and am sorry if its days are done. Is it that old anyway? Surely not...

As I said in a previous post, I like exhibits where you can walk up and see the animals, if they are too far away you can move to another part of the enclosure to see them better. But not in these newer-style ones where there are smaller 'viewing windows' and long stretches in between where the enclosures are hidden from your view altogether by walls or screened sections. Animals can still have private areas, but without such limited viewing opportunities for the public.

 

The Black Storks moved there.

In addition to what Pertinax was saying, a lot of the enclosures now are better suited for the animals than they are for the visitors. This is a good thing as animal welfare is one of the most important factors to a zoo. However, another very important factor is that the guests are able to view the animals. A zoo isn't just a place were animals are kept. It also isn't just a place to spend a day out at. People come to visit zoos to observe, study, photograph and enjoy the animals. At the same time, a zoo is a place were breeding programmes and conservation efforts take place. I think what Chester needs to do at the moment is to find the fine balance between these two key factors.

 

It opened in 1993, I believe - so it's a year short of the quarter-century.

 

Europe on the Edge was of course built over the old Polar Bear enclosure, which maybe dates from the 1960s?

 

I think it may be considerably older than that- its one of the early buildings there. A Chester regular can no doubt answer this. Bongorob?

 

It opened in 1944 according to: Me You and the Zoo - Memory

 

Black storks breed in central Europe and winter in Asia and central Africa. there is also a small breeding population in South Africa.

Werever they live, they are still one of my favourite birds.

 

I agree entirely with this point - which is not specific to Chester, it applies to the animals in every exhibit at every zoo. We all know that there are some animals which almost always show well such as elephants and giraffes (too big to hide) and ZooChat favourites like meerkats and small-clawed otters. But we also know that we will feel lucky to see an alert and active aardvark or giant anteater. Birds, reptiles and amphibians can show similar variability - but fishes are always wonderful of course
A zoo with a large collection is always going to have a fair number of less showy species, and in the 21st century, a zoo with as many visitors as Chester gets will always have to make provision for those species to hide away from the public. I think it is a rule, although perhaps an unwritten one, that the mammals at Chester have as much free access to outdoor, indoor and off-show accommodation as possible (allowing for feeding, cleaning and general management, and for certain exceptions like the elephant shrews, aye-ayes, chevrotains, bats etc).
I can understand some frustration with the viewing in certain enclosures at Chester (and at other zoos too of course); there is always room for improvement. I dare say that if the Monsoon Forest were destroyed by an earthquake tomorrow (which Heaven forfend, of course), it would be rebuilt to the same basic design, but with a few significant changes, based on the experience of the zoo staff and the zoo visitors.

 

I have great respect for a collection that puts animals before visitors and has the foresight to make enclosures with plenty of privacy for the species within them, but sometimes collections can take it a little too far and some may use it as an excuse not to cut the plantation within the exhibit.
I also have a thought that people want to see species in natural looking exhibits, so I have come to the conclusion that when you go looking for species in the wild they are hard to find in their natural environment so why should they be different in collections?

 

What I object to isn't so much whether the animals in an enclosure are actually visible or not, for whatever reason, its the situation where there are restricted viewing points to an enclosure, with long 'walks' along pathways between said viewing points. Particularly in places like Chester which take a lot of time getting around anyway- it just uses up yet more time. Example; at Chester the Spectacled Bears often don't show, but the enclosure design is 'old style' giving good scope for viewing along much of its length anyway, compared to say, the Sumatran Orangutans or Hunting Dogs.

 

I'd add the Lemur Islands,Spirit of the Jaguar and potentially the Cassowary enclosure in Islands to the list as well.

 

Speaking of which, one thing that I failed to mention in my review is that the old cassowary enclosure is still empty. I don't have a single clue on what may be going in there. Before I joined zoochat, I originally thought that the tree-kangaroos were destined to go in there but I was proved wrong. Still, it looks like there is currently no work taking place in there.

 

it would need a roof to house tree kangaroos

 

Aren't they building a roof on it anyway?

 

there is no sign of any work taking place in that enclosure.